When the rulebook was pushed aside, one finance minister refused to look the other way. Parliament may have exposed the irregularities, but the first alarm bell came from the man guarding the nation’s purse
By Kebeli Demba Nyima
Parliament has rightly received praise for exposing irregularities in the handling of assets seized from former President Yahya Jammeh. The National Assembly’s recent report has stirred an overdue national conversation about accountability, financial discipline, and the rule of law. Yet buried within the details of that report lies a truth that deserves equal attention: the first serious warning about those irregularities did not originate in Parliament. It came earlier from Mambury Njie, then minister of finance and economic affairs, who insisted that the management of those assets must comply with the Public Finance Act 2014.
For those who understand the architecture of modern financial governance, the Public Finance Act is not a minor procedural guideline. It is the backbone of the state’s fiscal system. The act establishes how public funds and assets must be received, recorded, managed, and audited. It ensures that financial decisions remain within a transparent treasury framework overseen by the ministry of finance and the accountant general. In economic terms, such systems protect the integrity of public finances by preventing discretionary handling of state resources outside legally recognised channels.
According to the findings now acknowledged by parliament, the management of Jammeh’s seized assets departed from this framework. Accounts connected to those assets were reportedly opened and administered outside the normal treasury system required by law. In any functioning public finance system, such an arrangement immediately raises serious concerns because it removes financial transactions from the very oversight mechanisms designed to protect them.
When these developments came to his attention, Mambury Njie objected. As the minister responsible for safeguarding the nation’s financial administration, he insisted that the management of those assets must be brought back within the legal framework established by the Public Finance Act. His position was neither political nor theatrical. It was a straightforward professional obligation rooted in the principles of fiscal accountability.
That insistence, however, brought him into direct conflict with the then Attorney General and Minister of Justice Abubacarr Tambadou. According to the parliamentary report, Njie’s objections were met not with institutional coordination but with confrontation. Tambadou reportedly threatened him with prosecution for challenging the financial arrangements surrounding the assets.
The significance of that confrontation has become clearer with the publication of parliament’s report. The National Assembly has now concluded that the management of those assets involved serious violations of the Public Finance Act. In doing so, parliament has effectively confirmed that the concerns raised by Njie were not only legitimate but prescient.
What was once dismissed by some observers as bureaucratic resistance now appears in a different light. It was the earliest attempt within government itself to defend the integrity of the country’s financial laws.
Yet the sequence of events that followed raises questions about how such acts of professional integrity are treated within public administration. Shortly after the dispute emerged, Njie was removed from his ministerial position and later posted to the diplomatic service abroad, where he now serves as The Gambia’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia.
Diplomatic service is an honourable assignment, but the timing of this transition inevitably invites reflection. The official who had insisted that the law governing public finance must be respected was suddenly no longer at the centre of domestic financial governance.
For a country seeking to strengthen its institutions after decades of authoritarian rule, the episode offers an important lesson. The stability of public financial systems depends not only on legislation but also on individuals willing to defend those laws when circumstances tempt others to circumvent them. In the language of economics and public administration, institutional integrity ultimately rests on the credibility of those entrusted with enforcing the rules.
Mambury Njie demonstrated precisely that credibility. In many countries, such conduct would be recognised as an example of exemplary public service. Nations that aspire to strong institutions often celebrate officials who protect the legal framework of governance even when doing so carries personal or political consequences.
For that reason, the Gambian state should consider awarding Mambury Njie a national honour for his defence of the Public Finance Act. Such recognition would not merely acknowledge an individual act of professional courage. It would signal that adherence to the rule of law remains the highest standard of public service in the Republic.
Honouring Njie would also serve a broader purpose. It would send a powerful message to the civil service that defending institutional procedures is not an act of disloyalty but one of patriotism. In countries where public institutions are still consolidating, such signals are essential for encouraging officials to act with independence and integrity.
Equally important, recognising his conduct would strengthen public confidence in government. Citizens are far more likely to trust state institutions when they see that those who protect the nation’s financial system are acknowledged rather than forgotten.
The National Assembly has now performed its duty by exposing irregularities in the management of the Jammeh assets. But the record shows that the earliest defence of the country’s financial laws came from a finance minister who insisted that the rulebook be respected.
Mambury Njie defended the treasury when it mattered most. The republic should now recognise that service, not quietly, but with the national honour it deserves.
