However, while the contributions of Marina’s Alumni deserve recognition and appreciation, I have become increasingly concerned about what appears to be a growing sense of entitlement among certain members of the Alumni community regarding their role in the school’s governance. There is an important distinction between maintaining a legitimate interest in the affairs of one’s former school and asserting an entitlement to participate in every decision of its Board or to occupy a permanent seat on that Board merely by virtue of being an Alumnus.
Such expectations are neither inherently justifiable nor consistent with the principles of sound institutional governance unless expressly provided for under the school’s governing constitution. Alumni status, however distinguished or longstanding, does not automatically confer superior governance rights, a permanent entitlement to Board representation or a greater claim to influence the school’s affairs than that of other legitimate stakeholders. Marina is an educational institution, not an exclusive Alumni Association, and its governance must be guided by its constitution, the interests of its pupils and the principles of fairness, accountability and inclusivity. Former students undoubtedly possess valuable institutional memory and experience, but these attributes should inform their contributions rather than create an expectation of preferential treatment.
Equally concerning is the impression created by certain statements emanating from sections of the Alumni community, which appear to demonstrate greater solidarity with the incumbent Board and its leadership than with the wider interests of Marina and its school community. Loyalty to Marina must never be mistaken for unquestioning loyalty to its Board or Chairman. Boards and Chairpersons are temporary custodians of an institution whose existence and legacy extend far beyond their individual tenures. Genuine loyalty to Marina should therefore manifest itself in a commitment to educational excellence, transparency, accountability, responsible governance and the wellbeing of its pupils, rather than automatic support for those occupying positions of authority. Alumni should accordingly manage their expectations and recognise that parents who did not attend Marina themselves are no less important, no less committed and no less deserving of respect and meaningful participation in the school’s affairs.
Indeed, many non-alumni parents have worked exceptionally hard, both within The Gambia and in the diaspora, to provide their children with the opportunity to attend Marina, often making considerable personal and financial sacrifices. Their contributions and legitimate stakeholder interests are not diminished simply because they did not themselves pass through Marina’s classrooms. Ultimately, the measure of one’s commitment to the school should not be whether one is an Alumnus, but the sincerity, fairness and constructive purpose of one’s contribution to its continued development. Marina’s future must be shaped through inclusive and responsible governance, not through competing claims of historical privilege or institutional entitlement.
At its best, Marina represented an educational community in which the Board, school administration, teachers, parents and alumni understood their respective responsibilities. Disagreements undoubtedly arose, as they inevitably do in institutions comprising individuals with different interests and perspectives. However, the expectation was that such differences would be addressed through consultation, dialogue, respect for established procedures and a common commitment to the institution’s welfare.
The school’s longstanding motto, Scholarship, Trustworthiness and Service, encapsulates the principles upon which that relationship ought to rest. Its more recently articulated values of respect, achievement, integrity, service and empathy similarly reflect an institutional philosophy that should guide not only the conduct of pupils but also the behaviour of those entrusted with leadership.
Unfortunately, developments over approximately the past decade have increasingly raised questions about whether the governance and leadership of Marina have consistently reflected those ideals. Concerns have emerged regarding disciplinary practices, safeguarding, employment relations, educational standards, financial transparency, parental consultation and, more recently, the manner in which the Board has responded to legitimate expressions of dissatisfaction from sections of the parent community.
One of the most troubling examples concerned the expulsion of a student following an incident at a school function in February 2019. The student, Alhagie Sankung Sillah Jr, was accused of misconduct involving dangerous driving and inappropriate behaviour towards a senior member of staff. The school’s disciplinary response eventually became the subject of proceedings before the High Court of The Gambia.
What should have been a matter addressed through the school’s established disciplinary framework developed into a serious legal dispute. The central issue was not simply whether the student had engaged in misconduct, but whether the school had observed the procedures and standards of fairness required before imposing the severe sanction of expulsion.
In June 2021, Honourable Justice Ebrima Jaiteh delivered a judgment finding that the student’s suspension and expulsion had been carried out in breach of the principles of natural justice. The Court found that he had not been afforded a proper opportunity to be heard before the disciplinary action was taken. It also examined Marina’s own code of conduct, which prescribed procedures involving the disciplinary committee and the Board of Governors.
The Court ordered that the student be permitted to resume his education at Marina and awarded D200,000.00 (two hundred thousand dalasis) in damages together with D50,000.00 (fifty thousand dalasis) in costs, bringing the total financial award to D250,000.00 (two hundred and fifty thousand dalasis).
That judgment represented considerably more than an embarrassing legal defeat. It exposed a fundamental failure to observe elementary principles of fairness within an institution whose primary purpose is to educate young people about responsible conduct, discipline, justice and respect for established rules.
The principle of audi alteram partem, the right to be heard, is among the most elementary requirements of natural justice. It demands that persons facing adverse decisions be afforded a fair opportunity to understand and respond to the allegations against them. This principle is particularly important in educational institutions, where disciplinary sanctions can affect a child’s emotional wellbeing, educational continuity and future opportunities.
The judgment should have served as a powerful reminder that authority within an educational institution is neither absolute nor immune from judicial scrutiny. A Headteacher, Director, Chairperson or Board cannot simply disregard established procedures because it believes that its decisions are justified. The legitimacy of institutional authority depends not only on the objectives pursued but also on the fairness and legality of the processes employed.
I understand that the student’s parents eventually elected not to return him to Marina notwithstanding the reinstatement order. If so, that decision would be understandable in circumstances where confidence in the institution had already been seriously undermined.
One would have expected that episode to prompt a comprehensive review of the school’s disciplinary procedures, the exercise of authority by senior administrators and the effectiveness of Board oversight. It should also have encouraged a broader institutional commitment to ensuring that no pupil or parent would again be subjected to decisions taken without adherence to the principles of fairness.
What makes the unlawful expulsion of the student particularly troubling is that, at the material time in 2019, Marina International School’s Board of Governors was chaired by a senior judicial officer, a Judge of the Court of Appeal of The Gambia. It was under her chairmanship that this serious disciplinary and governance failure occurred, ultimately resulting in the High Court’s judgment in 2021 against the school for violating the fundamental principles of natural justice. Although the disciplinary decision was taken by the Headmaster, the incident raises serious questions about the effectiveness of oversight exercised by the Board under her leadership. One would reasonably expect a school whose Board was chaired by a senior judicial officer to demonstrate particular sensitivity to procedural fairness, due process and the elementary right of an individual to be heard before an adverse decision is taken. That such a fundamental failure of natural justice occurred under the leadership of someone entrusted professionally with upholding those very principles make the episode particularly disappointing. The resulting financial liability and reputational damage were borne by the institution, not personally by those whose governance responsibilities deserved scrutiny.
A separate and equally disturbing incident involving the same Chairperson concerned her treatment of a parent who had raised concerns about the school’s governance. That parent happened to be me, a senior legal practitioner and, at the time, the father of three children attending Marina. In an email communication concerning a separate governance matter, the then Chairperson referred to me as a “delinquent son”, an expression I considered entirely unprovoked, offensive and profoundly disrespectful. My engagement had been motivated by legitimate concerns about governance, not personal hostility or any desire to undermine the institution. To be subjected to such language by the Chairperson of a respected school was unacceptable in my view, that the remarks came from a serving senior judicial officer made the experience particularly troubling. This was not a judicial finding against her, but my own direct experience of conduct which, in my considered opinion, fell well below the standards of professionalism, restraint, courtesy and respect expected of an institutional leader. A Chairperson who cannot engage respectfully with parents raising uncomfortable governance questions risks undermining the confidence and trust upon which effective school leadership depends. The authority of the office does not confer a licence to disparage or belittle those whose legitimate concerns may be inconvenient.
What is equally disappointing is the apparent silence of sections of the Marina Alumni community in the face of these controversies, particularly when the offensive correspondence became a matter of public knowledge. To my knowledge, there was no meaningful public intervention or expression of concern from those Alumni who now appear increasingly vocal in asserting their entitlement to greater involvement in Marina’s governance, including representation on its Board of Governors. Where were these voices when serious questions arose concerning the unlawful expulsion of a student, the failure to observe fundamental principles of natural justice and the disrespectful treatment of a parent by the then Chairperson? One cannot credibly demand greater influence in the governance of an institution while appearing indifferent to serious governance shortcomings merely because they involve those occupying positions of authority. Alumni loyalty must be directed towards Marina as an institution, its values, pupils and wider community, rather than towards particular Chairpersons or successive Boards. While the absence of public statements does not necessarily mean that individual Alumni failed to express concerns privately, the apparent lack of visible engagement raises legitimate questions about the consistency of their advocacy. A commitment to good governance must be principled and consistent, not selective or dependent upon personal relationships, institutional loyalties or the identities of those being criticised. Alumni are important stakeholders, but their claim to meaningful participation should be supported by demonstrated commitment to accountability, fairness and institutional integrity, not merely by their historical association with the school.
These two incidents, although separate in their circumstances and legal significance, illustrate the broader governance concerns that I believe have become increasingly apparent at Marina since approximately 2016. The first concerned a failure of institutional oversight and procedural fairness that resulted in an adverse judicial determination against the school. The second concerned the conduct of the Board’s own Chairperson towards a parent exercising his right to question governance practices. Both, in different ways, raise questions about the culture of accountability, respect and responsiveness within the institution’s leadership. Subsequent controversies involving safeguarding, employment relations, financial transparency, parental consultation and, most recently, litigation arising from the requisitioned EGM have further reinforced these concerns. What emerges, in my assessment, is not simply a series of unrelated controversies, but recurring weaknesses in the exercise of authority, the handling of grievances and the relationship between successive Boards and the school community. These developments demand serious scrutiny of the governance and leadership of Marina International School over the past decade, including the accountability of successive Chairpersons and the collective responsibilities of their Boards.
By Omar F M’Bai
To be continued
