By Dr Lamin Keita
The issue at stake and the legal anomalies:
The rearrest of Ousanou Bojang and Amie Bojang following their acquittal by High Court Justice Jaiteh evidence a troubling crisis of legal obedience in The Gambia. This development must be a concern to every Gambian, particularly the Gambia Bar Association and the NAMs who bear both a technical and moral responsibility to defend the integrity of the legal system. At a minimum, the NAMs and Bar Association should issue a public statement condemning this action and formally engage the Chief Justice and President Barrow as head of state. Accepting such practices to go uncontested risks setting a dangerous precedent that undermines judicial authority and weakens public confidence in the rule of law within a democratic system.
Apparently, concerning is the historical echo this case and situation present. The use of acquittal followed by rearrest was a hallmark of authoritarian legal mechanical tools used during the Jammeh era, where even judges, law enforcement officers, and ordinary citizens were not spared from arbitrary state actions. In comparative fashion, it is deeply troubling to witness similar patterns emerging under Barrow’s government that claims democratic legitimacy. The Bar Association and the judiciary must be reminded that the credibility of the current system depends on a clear break away from the past abuses our country experienced. The question to asked is simple but urgent: why are these practices resurfacing now, in a period that is meant to be defined by adherence to law and democracy.
A government that claims legitimacy under the rule of law must tie itself to be the first and most consistent subject of that law. In the tangible case of Ousanou and his sister, their acquittal by a competent court should have marked the end of legal proceedings against them, affirming both judicial independence and the presumption of innocence. Because as the state proceeds to rearrest Ousanou and sister immediately after acquittal, sends a bad image and concept that legal outcomes are subordinate to executive discretion or bureaucratic impulses. This would ultimately undermines public trust in our judiciary and erodes the very foundation of constitutional governance. If overwhelming number of Gambians come to believe that court decisions can be casually overridden, the law ceases to function as a neutral arbiter and instead becomes an instrument of uncertainty and fear. That was not what we fought for 2016 change.
Today’s actions also have consequences and illustrate deeper anomalies within our state bureaucracy—namely, the lack of coordination, accountability, and respect for institutional boundaries. A properly functioning legal system bank on clear adherence to procedure, where law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and courts operate within defined limits, serving as caveats. When these limits are ignored or manipulated, it mirrors systemic weaknesses rather than isolated errors. Our country striving to consolidate democratic norms after a history of 22 years of autocratic rule, the stakes are especially high. The Barrow government must model obedience to the law not only to ensure justice in individual cases like that of Ousanou, but also to cultivate a political culture grounded in legality, restraint, and institutional integrity. Anything fall-short, the promise of rule of law would remain hollow, and bureaucratic irregularities risk becoming normalized features of governance rather than correctable deviations.
