By Mohammed Jallow
In every serious national development conversation there will always be two forces at play; those who seek to understand before they speak and those who speak before they understand. Unfortunately, in the ongoing public discourse surrounding the GPA-Albayrak Joint Company pre-construction contract, the latter category has dominated the narrative. What we are witnessing today is not a healthy critique grounded in facts and technical comprehension but rather a loud chorus of speculative commentary driven by shallow interpretations, political convenience and a quest for cheap popularity.
It is therefore imperative to set the records straight with clarity, responsibility and intellectual honesty.
The headlines screaming that GPA is renegotiating the concession agreement with Albayrak are not only misleading but intellectually dishonest. They resonate more with journalistic gimmicks designed to attract readership than with the substance of what is actually taking place. Anyone who followed the proceedings of the GPA management during their appearance before the Public Enterprises Committee at the National Assembly would know that the managing director, Mr Jobarteh, was unequivocal and precise in his explanation. What are being renegotiated are aspects of the pre-construction activities and not the entire concession agreement as some commentators have irresponsibly suggested.
This distinction is not semantic. It is fundamental.
Pre-construction activities in projects of this magnitude are not ceremonial footnotes. They are highly technical, legally binding and financially consequential phases that determine the viability, sustainability and engineering integrity of the entire project. These include access to designated land areas, environmental and geotechnical studies, hydrological assessments, technical investigations and feasibility validations that inform the final infrastructure designs. If these foundational elements are not properly executed, any attempt to rush into physical construction would be reckless and potentially catastrophic.
The managing director further clarified that the delays experienced were not a result of financing instruments or lack of investor commitment but rather the inability of both parties to fully meet their obligations within the pre construction framework. This includes issues relating to land access and the completion of essential technical studies. These are not administrative inconveniences. They are structural prerequisites.
One must also understand the very architecture of this concession transaction. The model is such that the investor bears the full financial burden for the operation of the Banjul Port and the construction of the new deep seaport. Government retains ownership of the fixed assets and holds twenty percent equity without making any financial contribution. This is not a small concession. It is a strategic partnership in which the state preserves sovereignty over critical national infrastructure while leveraging private capital, expertise and risk absorption.
To assume that a project of such international scale, involving billions of dalasis in capital investment, complex maritime engineering, transnational logistics frameworks and sovereign legal instruments can proceed without encountering delays is not realism. It is intellectual naivety.
Global infrastructure projects of this nature routinely experience extended pre-construction phases that run into several years. This is not failure. It is due diligence. It is risk management. It is institutional responsibility. Anyone familiar with port development in Senegal, Morocco, Kenya or even Dubai will attest that delays in commencement are often symptoms of technical rigor, not institutional incompetence.
What is even more perplexing is that many of the loudest critics conveniently ignore the empirical performance indicators of the GPA under the current management. This has been the trajectory of dividend payment on a year on year incremental basis from a nonpayment situation before 2016 to consistent annual payments from D5 million to a high of D170 million. Cumulatively, close to D500 million has been paid during the past five years. This is not propaganda. These are audited financial realities.
In a country where public enterprises were once synonymous with inefficiency, financial hemorrhage and institutional decay, such performance should provoke serious analysis, not cynical distortion. The GPA today is not the GPA of yesterday. It is a transformed institution that has moved from deficit to dividend, from stagnation to strategic positioning, from administrative inertia to corporate relevance.
Yet instead of acknowledging these structural gains, some critics prefer to weaponise partial information and politicise technical processes. They reduce complex contractual arrangements into populist soundbites. They invoke renegotiation as if it were synonymous with collapse. They speak about bonds, covenants and financial instruments without understanding what these terms actually mean within international concession frameworks.
This is not how serious nations build infrastructure. This is how public confidence is eroded by ignorance masquerading as activism.
The role of the GPA managing director is not to satisfy social media outrage or to perform governance theatrics. His role is to safeguard national assets, enforce contractual discipline, ensure compliance with legal and technical standards and negotiate in the long term interest of the Gambian state. That is not a popularity contest. It is a fiduciary responsibility.
Renegotiating aspects of pre construction activities does not imply weakness. It implies maturity. It implies that the institution is not blindly marching into irreversible commitments without recalibrating based on ground realities. It reflects strategic prudence, not institutional confusion.
Those calling for the MD to be pressured, replaced or publicly vilified must first answer a simple question. Do you want infrastructure built fast or infrastructure built right.
Ports are not markets. They are sovereign gateways. They define national trade, security, customs revenue, maritime positioning and regional competitiveness for generations. A poorly designed port is not just a technical error. It is a geopolitical liability.
Let the man do his work. Let professionals handle professional matters. Let engineers design. Let economists model. Let lawyers interpret. Let the board govern. Let the state regulate.
Public scrutiny is necessary. But informed scrutiny is a duty. Noise without knowledge is not accountability. It is sabotage disguised as civic engagement.
The GPA-Albayrak Joint Company arrangement is not perfect. No concession agreement ever is. But it is not the caricature of betrayal or incompetence that some are trying to paint. It is a complex, evolving, legally structured partnership that requires patience, technical literacy and institutional confidence.
If we truly want national development, we must graduate from emotional commentary to evidence based discourse. We must stop confusing delay with failure and renegotiation with retreat. Above all, we must learn to respect process over propaganda.
History does not remember those who shouted the loudest. It remembers those who built the strongest foundations.
