By Dr Alieu Manjang
The recent appearance of Mr Momodou Jeng, director of curriculum and Mr Sanyang from the Ministry of Basic and Secondary Education (MoBSE) on Kerr Fatou to elaborate on their justification for selecting Wolof for the national language pilot project raises significant concerns. While their discussion of the broader national language policy — teaching all subjects in national languages from Early Childhood Development (ECD) to Grade 3 and offering them as subjects beyond Grade 4 — is a welcome development, the manner in which this policy has been formulated and implemented is problematic.
A major issue is the lack of public awareness and consultation. Even cabinet ministers and National Assembly Members appeared unaware of the policy and its pilot phase until it became a subject of public criticism. This exposes a fundamental flaw in decision-making, as language policy is deeply intertwined with ideological, cultural, and identity politics. Given its implications on issues such as hegemony, domination, and power relations, especially in Africa, where language is closely tied to ethnic identity, the exclusion of political input from the formulation of this policy has rendered it controversial. Proper political alignment could have mitigated the ongoing controversy.
Despite the controversy being fueled by the exclusive selection of Wolof for the pilot project, the topic was largely ignored throughout the show. It was only addressed at the 59th minute when Mr Jeng attempted an unclear and inconsistent justification for Wolof’s selection. His rationale evolved multiple times, each explanation raising further concerns. Initially, he stated that implementing an effective language policy required monitoring, material development, and teacher training, which necessitated selecting one language to start with, while the remaining languages were assigned to a consultant. However, he neither explicitly named Wolof as the chosen language nor disclosed which languages were handed to the consultant. More troubling was the absence of any mention of the consultant’s identity, leaving the public uncertain whether such a consultant exists.
The only moment Wolof was explicitly acknowledged as the selected language was when Mrs Fatou Bin Jobe referred to it as the “Wolof Project”. Jeng’s justification for excluding Mandinka and Fula — the first and second most widely spoken languages in schools — was equally questionable. He argued that for a language to be used in education, it must be standardised, codified, and have a structured writing system, including dictionaries and handbooks. This implied that other languages, including Mandinka, lacked such resources, a claim that is demonstrably false.
Honourable Sidia Jatta, a linguist who has dedicated his career to developing Mandinka, was present on the show and could have easily refuted these claims. A wealth of materials exists in Mandinka, including:
· Elementary Mandinka Sentence Book (1955)
· Intermediate Gambian Mandinka-English Dictionary by David P Gamble (1987)
· English-Mandinka Dictionary by Muhammad I Ashrif (1965)
· A Defined Orthography for Gambian Mandinka by the Curriculum Development Centre (1979)
· A Grammar of Gambian Mandinka by EC Rowlands (1959)
· A Short Study of the Western Mandinka Language by WT Hamlyn (1935),
· A Grammar of Gambian Mandinka by EC Rowlands (1959)
· Toward a Defined Orthography for Gambian Mandinka by Sidia S Jatta (1977),
· A Grammar of the Mandingo Language with Vocabularies by Maxwell Macbrair (1891).
These and tens of grammar, dictionaries, and manuals for teaching Mandinka have been developed by the Peace Corps since the 1970s, and the most recent one was developed in 2014. Other indigenous efforts also proved the codification of Mandinka, including books by Kitabu Jabang, who wrote more than 20 books and whose knowledge was sought by the ministry alongside Sidia Jatta.
While some might argue that these materials are meant to be adult learning materials, it refuted the claim made by Mr Jeng that other languages are not standardised and codified compared to the Wolof language. All these books prove the establishment of standard Mandinka, which is formalised through its nouns, including grammar, spelling, and pronunciation, through dictionaries, grammar books and usage guides. More recent Mandinka use in formal schools includes logographic, syllabic and alphabetical uses. MoBSE itself confirmed the availability of Mandinka materials as reflected in a answer given by teachers in the school languages mapping survey conducted by the ministry as 881 teachers confirmed the availability of Mandinka materials compared to 587 for Fula and 431 for Wolof. However, Mr Jeng alleged that he and Mr Sanyang confirmed that this was not the case during their tour of 100 schools.
Nevertheless, as part their efforts to improve reading and writing skills in schools, the Senegalese Ministry of National Education in partnership with USAID produced Mandinka materials including phonetic, teaching manual for teachers in the Initial Reading Enhancement Programme for All to teach students from ECD to grade three which is currently being taught in Mandinka dominated regions including in Tambacounda. Thus, this confirmed not only the availability of material in Mandinka in The Gambia but also in Senegal. Mr Jeng and team showed the need to adopt Wolof language, not Mandinka or Fula, despite the availability of materials in the country as confirmed by Mr Jeng himself and our research. We already have such materials which we shared with teachers in the ongoing Wolof Project who confirmed that similar materials are used for Wolof. More importantly, Sidia Jatta confirmed during the programme that the African Language Academy has materials in Mandé (which he explained include Dioula, Mandinka, Bambara, and Malinké). Now the question is why Mr Jeng and the team need to adopt Wolof materials beyond Gambia, not Mandinka, which is more developed within the country?
Moreover, the Roman alphabet is inadequate for certain African languages, including Mandinka, which has seen significant advancements through the N’ko script. This script has been successfully codified and standardised, making it as viable as English, French, or Arabic for formal education. More than six N’ko schools are being operated across The Gambia by communities and N’ko associations. Thus, if technical considerations such as materials and orthography were decisive factors, Mandinka should have been prioritised.
It is worth mentioning that technical considerations do not determine a language to be chosen among many. According to sociolinguists, in a multilingual context, a language rooted in the nation’s history and the conscience of the people of the nation is used to reflect the roots and identity of society. Thus, the issue of materials or cost, as well as other technicalities of a particular language, is secondary in the presence of political will, which can guide the allocation of resources towards the codification and standardisation of language to be taught. Honourable Sidia has alluded to this during the show by citing the example of Somalia, where former President Mohammed Siad Barre ordered that the Somali language be chosen among the other three languages as an official language for a specific period in the 1970s. Honourable Jatta also cited the examples of Rwanda, which has recently adopted Kiswahili to reflect the political will of the leadership to determine the national language. Thus, it is unfortunate that the national language issue in The Gambia is left with technocrats to decide, who are insensitive to the political implications of their decision.
Beyond Wolof’s choice, other critical issues remain unaddressed. Why was Wolof chosen to be piloted in four regions in the first phase, despite being only the third most dominant language in schools? Why were Mandinka and Fula relegated to a later phase with Sarahule in Regions 5 and 6? Why was the Lower River Region entirely excluded from the pilot? Additionally, MoBSE representatives failed to specify the timeline for nationwide implementation or the sustainability of the project beyond its pilot phase. Given that the RISE initiative, through which MISS is funded, is set to phase out in 2029, there is real concern that the project may never extend beyond Wolof.
In sum, Mr Jeng and his team’s explanations raise more questions than they answer. The lack of transparency, inconsistent justifications, and exclusion of critical stakeholders from the decision-making process suggest that the selection of Wolof may have been influenced by factors beyond those publicly stated. If the government is serious about developing a fair and effective national language policy, it must ensure inclusivity, transparency, and alignment with both technical and political considerations.
Dr Alieu Manjang is a diplomat and a prominent researcher in language policy and an advocate for local languages in education.
