By Abdoulie Bah
In a democracy, the right to contest elections should never depend on the weight of one’s wallet. It should depend on one’s ideas, integrity, and ability to represent the people. Yet in The Gambia today, the path to leadership is becoming increasingly inaccessible, not because people lack ambition or public trust, but because they lack money.
Let us start at the beginning.
In 2015, under the regime of former President Yahya Jammeh, the Elections (Amendment) Act was passed, introducing steep increases in nomination deposits. The amounts were raised; for Presidential Aspirants, from D10,000 to D500,000; for Parliamentary Aspirants, from D5000 to D50,000; for Mayors and Chairperson, from D2500 to D50,000; and for Councillors, from D1250 to D10,000 respectively. When the Coalition, in 2016, took the reigns of power, the first thing they did was to revise this and return the figures to its original status before 2015. The rationale was simple: the amount was symbolic enough to discourage unserious candidates but not so high as to deny genuine aspirants a fair chance. It was a reasonable threshold, one that reflected the economic realities of most Gambians.
But ten years on, something has gone dangerously wrong.
Today, the proposed deposit fee for National Assembly elections stands at D150,000; a jaw-dropping 3,000% increase. Presidential Aspirants are expected to pay D1 million, while those running for Mayor or Chairperson must fork out D250,000, and Councillors D50,000.
To put this in perspective: D150,000 is three years’ salary for many low-income Gambians. For the youth, women, teachers, and other cohorts of our commuinty; the very people who live the struggles of ordinary citizens, these figures are simply unattainable. The result? Democracy is being sold to the highest bidder.
Electoral deposits are meant to deter unserious candidates from flooding the ballot. This is not unique to The Gambia, many democracies use deposit systems. However, the amount must be proportionate, and the system must not be so expensive that it excludes citizens on the basis of class or geography.
By dramatically raising the deposits, The Gambia risks replacing political competition with economic gatekeeping. The electoral field, instead of being a marketplace of ideas, is becoming a playground for the rich and politically connected.
This undermines the very spirit of Section 26 of the 1997 Constitution of The Gambia, which guarantees every citizen the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs, including the right to be elected to public office.
When deposit fees are higher than most Gambians’ life savings, that right is denied.
Let us ask ourselves some difficult questions:
1. How many current National Assembly Members could have afforded D150,000 when they first contested?
2. Can a young activist from URR or a community organizer from Kiang raise this kind of money without being co-opted by elite interests?
3. How many women and people with disabilities, already underrepresented in our politics, will be able to contest under this new regime?
The answer is grim.
These inflated fees do not just block individuals, they undermine representation. They make Parliament less reflective of the people it serves. They drain our politics of fresh ideas, youthful energy, gender diversity, and grassroots voices. They feed a system where only the wealthy, or those backed by the wealthy, can lead.
This is not democracy. This is oligarchy in disguise.
Let us also consider political parties. The Gambia has over a dozen registered political parties. Most of them operate on shoestring budgets.
To sponsor a candidate in all 53 constituencies, a party would now need over D7.9 million in deposits alone, excluding campaign logistics. This means only parties with deep donor connections, often foreign or elite-based; will be able to field full slates. Smaller parties, youth-led movements, and issue-based candidates are automatically sidelined.
This is not only undemocratic, it erodes the foundation of a vibrant, multi-party democracy.
It is deeply concerning that the increment for deposit fees was advanced by the National Assembly, reportedly dominated by political partisan wills. This raises serious ethical questions: Are the same people who benefited from accessible elections now working to shut the door behind them?
This reeks of political entrenchment, an attempt to turn public office into a private club. It is the weaponisation of economic privilege to retain power, and it must be challenged.
The Gambia belongs to all of us and Democracy is not just about voting. It is about participation, representation, and accountability. If you block poor people from contesting elections, you are not building democracy, you are destroying it.
Let us be clear: The Gambia does not lack capable leaders. It lacks affordable access to leadership. And if we don’t fix that, we risk creating a system where the only people who govern are those who can afford to buy power, not those who deserve to wield it.
If we truly believe that sovereignty belongs to the people, then we must make it possible for the people; all people, rich or poor, to have a fair chance to lead.
Democracy should be a bridge, not a barrier.
