The President’s Constitutional Right to Contest the 2026 Elections
By Lamin Saidy
Private citizen
The recent commentary questioning the President’s intention to contest the 2026 presidential elections is fundamentally misleading, intellectually inconsistent, and legally unsound. While cloaked in moral rhetoric, the argument fails to withstand constitutional scrutiny and does not reflect the democratic realities of The Gambia.
First and foremost, the Constitution of the Republic of The Gambia (1997), which remains the supreme law of the land, does not impose presidential term limits. This is an indisputable legal fact. Any attempt to argue otherwise is either a deliberate distortion of the Constitution or a gross misunderstanding of it. In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, legality is not optional, nor can it be overridden by subjective moral interpretations advanced by individuals, however eloquently expressed.
The claim that the President’s decision to contest is “legally right but morally wrong” is therefore logically flawed and politically misleading. There is no universally agreed moral principle that prohibits a law-abiding citizen let alone an elected leader from exercising a constitutional right. On the contrary, respecting and upholding the Constitution is itself a moral obligation. To argue that obedience to the Constitution is immoral sets a dangerous precedent and undermines constitutionalism, democracy, and national stability.
Furthermore, the Gambian people are the ultimate moral authority in a democracy, not self-appointed advisers or commentators. The right to contest elections and the right to choose leaders belong exclusively to the people. Preventing a constitutionally eligible candidate from contesting elections under the guise of “moral pressure” is, in fact, a direct assault on the democratic rights of Gambians to freely choose whom they wish to govern them.
The attempt to conflate past political struggles with the present constitutional order is also disingenuous. The former dictatorship was not defeated because of term limits alone, but because of systemic abuse of power, disregard for the rule of law, and violations of fundamental human rights. Today’s reality is markedly different. The President operates within a constitutional framework, under multiparty democracy, with an independent judiciary, a free press, and regular elections. To draw moral equivalence between these two contexts is misleading and intellectually dishonest.
It is also concerning that the author seeks to impose a personal moral standard as a national imperative, while disregarding the basic principles of ethics, professionalism, and legal objectivity expected from a legal-minded scholar. Ethical responsibility demands honesty, balance, and respect for constitutional facts, not emotional persuasion or fear-based speculation aimed at misleading the public.
In conclusion, there is neither a legal nor a moral basis to suggest that the President should be barred explicitly or implicitly from contesting the 2026 elections. His eligibility is constitutionally guaranteed, and his candidacy, if pursued, will be subject to the will of the Gambian electorate. Democracy is strengthened, not weakened, when choices are expanded and when citizens are trusted to decide their own future at the ballot box.
Any argument that undermines the Constitution dismisses the sovereign will of the people and substitutes personal opinion for established law does not hold water and should be treated as such.
