Pardons are a sovereign instrument meant to temper justice with mercy, to correct clear miscarriages and to relieve disproportionate punishment. In a democracy they are also a matter of public trust: when a president exercises clemency, citizens must be confident that the decision promotes fairness without endangering the vulnerable. That trust is under strain when pardons are granted without transparent safeguards — and nothing threatens it more than freeing convicted rapists.
The human cost of sexual violence is lifelong. Survivors carry physical, psychological and social scars; families and communities suffer fractured dignity and fear. When the state removes a convicted rapist from custody and places them back into society without clear evidence of rehabilitation or accountability, it risks further harm to survivors and to public safety. Moreover, such pardons send a corrosive message: that violence against women and girls may be negotiable, that power can trump justice.
President Barrow must therefore ensure that any exercise of clemency follows rigorous, transparent standards. That means an explicit vetting process that excludes certain categories — rape and other serious sexual offences included — unless incontrovertible evidence demonstrates rehabilitation, restitution to victims, and no risk of reoffending. It means involving expert panels: criminal justice specialists, psychologists, victim advocates and independent legal advisers who can assess danger and the sufficiency of rehabilitation programmes.
Transparency must be non-negotiable. Decisions to pardon should include publicly available reasons, redacted only where necessary to protect victims’ identities. Parliament and oversight bodies should have access to the criteria and the records used to reach clemency decisions. This builds accountability and reassures citizens that mercy is not being meted out to the well-connected or to those whose crimes devastate the weakest.
Rehabilitation programmes and robust post-release supervision are essential where clemency is considered. Prison-based counselling, proven behaviour-change interventions, and monitored community reintegration reduce recidivism. Where these supports are absent or unproven, the default must be caution: public safety and victim dignity over premature acts of mercy.
Finally, the president should consult survivors and civil society before making clemency policy. Those who have endured sexual violence bring indispensable perspective on risk, retraumatisation and the meaning of justice in real communities. Their voices should shape a process that recognises mercy but refuses to subordinate safety and accountability.
A presidency judged by its compassion must also be judged by its wisdom. Clemency that ignores the consequences of releasing rapists will not be seen as mercy; it will be seen as betrayal.
Mr President, if you value the trust of Gambians and the safety of women and girls across the country — guard the pardon power carefully, transparently and never at the expense of survivors’ rights and public security.
