By Kebeli Demba Nyima
The Gambian government’s decision to appoint a British special prosecutor to head a new criminal unit is a move that warrants deep skepticism rather than applause. To those of us who have spent decades analysing the prosecution of former heads of state, this has all the hallmarks of a classic “stalling tactic” disguised as international best practice. The President is essentially building a new, expensive waiting room for justice, while the victims of the previous regime are left standing at the door.
One must look at the precedent set by the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission and the Janneh Commission to understand why this latest development is so concerning. Billions of Dalasis were invested into these processes under the promise of accountability and institutional reform. Instead, what we saw was a massive expenditure of public funds that resulted in comprehensive reports but almost zero significant prosecutions.
The TRRC was, by all rigorous academic standards, a triumph of truth-telling. It produced over 2,000 pages of meticulous findings, explicitly identifying the chain of command responsible for extrajudicial killings, systemic torture, and enforced disappearances. However, a profound legal failure occurred in the critical transition from “truth” to “trial.” By neglecting to establish a specialised domestic tribunal immediately upon the report’s submission in 2021, the Barrow administration allowed vital evidence to grow cold and political momentum to evaporate.
The Janneh Commission, tasked with investigating the financial skulduggery of the former regime, followed a similarly disheartening trajectory. While it meticulously unraveled the web of state looting, the subsequent recovery process remained shielded from public audit and characterised by a lack of transparency. In fact, the betrayal of the commission’s mandate is best illustrated by the rehabilitation of those it incriminated; former officials who were explicitly recommended for bans from public service, such as current Presidential Adviser Momodou Sabally, have been absorbed and recycled back into the halls of power.
When a state spends millions to investigate a former dictator’s wealth but fails to provide a clear, public ledger of how those recovered assets were liquidated or reinvested into the public good, the process ceases to be an exercise in justice and becomes purely extractive. When an executive continuously manufactures new commissions to “study” crimes and financial malfeasance that have already been exhaustively documented, it is not a pursuit of truth; it is a pursuit of time. This is a deliberate deflection strategy, an attempt to project a facade of activity to the international community while ensuring that, domestically, the wheels of justice remain locked in place.
The logistical argument presented by the government spokesperson, that these cases are “cumbersome” and require a “long-term approach,” is a rhetorical shield. In reality, the evidence gathered by the TRRC is more than sufficient to begin proceedings. By insisting on an “array of legal minds” and a multi-year timeline that stretches beyond 2026, the administration is effectively kicking the ball into the long grass. For a developing nation, the opportunity cost of this delay is staggering. Every billion Dalasis spent on international consultants and the administrative overhead of “special courts” is a billion Dalasis diverted from the hospitals, schools, and infrastructure that the Gambian people desperately need.
If President Barrow were genuinely committed to justice, he would prioritise domestic judicial action over foreign-led bureaucracy. Instead, he is overseeing a framework of procrastination. The history of transitional justice shows that when the executive branch lacks the political will to prosecute, it creates complex, externalised legal structures to absorb the public’s anger. We are witnessing a wild goose chase that serves the elite while ignoring the suffering of the citizenry. The Gambia does not need more “special prosecutors” or international guests; it needs a government that stops talking and starts acting on the evidence it already has.
It is time for the executive to understand that the legitimacy of a legal system is derived from its results, not its complexity. The Gambian people do not require further lectures on the “international dimension” of these crimes; they require the courage of a government that prioritises the rule of law over political convenience. If this administration continues to treat the pursuit of justice as a tool for time-management, it will succeed only in proving that its true interest lies in self-preservation rather than the restoration of the national conscience.
Bottom line upfront
The Gambia does not have a “legal” problem; it has a “political” problem. The evidence is there. The witnesses have spoken. The crimes are documented. To suggest that we now need a “long haul” until 2026 or beyond to see a single indictment is not an exercise in the rule of law, it is an exercise in political survival. The billions of Dalasis currently being earmarked for this new legal theater would serve the victims far better if they were paid out as reparations or used to fix the very institutions Jammeh destroyed. Justice should be a sharp, decisive instrument. Under this administration, it has become an overextended, self-perpetuating industry that yields nothing but reports and excuses.
