By Dr Ousman Gajigo
The Minister of Finance, Seedy Keita, recently appeared in the media, where he tried to spin a narrative at odds with reality regarding The Gambia’s public debt. But it is hard to spin reality about the size and structure of a subject such as public debt when so much is well documented. The fact is that the total size of the debt ballooned under the Adama Barrow administration. In addition, its composition changed in significant ways that are negative for the country.
In 2016, the country’s total public debt was about D60 billion. Today, the public debt is well over D140 billion – more than double within ten years. No matter which way one looks at it, the Adama Barrow administration has added more to the debt than earlier administrations did. So the legacy of earlier debt is not a major driver of the current public debt.
The external component of the public debt, which must be settled in hard currency and cannot be inflated away like domestic debt, has also exploded under the Adama Barrow administration. In 2016, the external debt was higher than the domestic debt. Today, external debt makes up a far higher proportion of the total, which makes servicing it far more difficult. Indeed, the more we service that foreign debt, the more it accelerates the depreciation of our currency – and we know that currency depreciation is one of the major factors driving our inflation and rising cost of living.
It was also interesting to note that during his media appearance, Minister Keita’s comments seemed to treat debt accumulated by state-owned enterprises (SOEs) as a special category, as if the government bears no responsibility for it. But the debt from these SOEs cannot be separated from the overall government, as if they were independently run institutions with no government control. After all, the central government appoints the management of all the SOEs, and it appoints their boards as well. The strategies and policies guiding the operations of these SOEs are determined by the government. Many of the loans taken out by these entities were only possible because of guarantees provided by the state. It therefore makes no sense to speak as if the liabilities incurred by these SOEs somehow mitigate the gargantuan size of the debt this government has accumulated.
The government has also tried to downplay the scale of the debt figures by pointing to supposed “development investments”. This argument, too, is hollow once properly scrutinized. Consider the two main development expenditures this government has proudly proclaimed: electricity and roads. Pouring money into a sector does not automatically mean investment in that sector. The Adama Barrow administration’s record in these two sectors provides a textbook case of why expenditure is not necessarily investment.
Africans & diaspora
Most of the debt incurred for the electricity sector came directly through Nawec or projects implemented by that SOE. Billions of dalasi have been spent by this administration on electricity, yet the country has not achieved energy security. The most egregious example is the more than D12 billion paid to Karpowership for the temporary supply of a small quantity of electricity.
Yes, electricity access has increased in rural areas, but we are now left with a situation where the country imports the bulk of our electricity from Senegal, which exposes the country to supply decisions made in Senegal – decisions over which we have no control. Not only does this weaken energy security, but it also leaves the country in a weakened position in any negotiations with Senegal on any issue. The payments to Karpowership and payments for Senegalese electricity imports were financed with both deficit spending and direct lending from multilateral institutions. In other words, public debt increased because of actions by the government, but without any unequivocal overall improvements in the sector.
The situation is not fundamentally different when it comes to roads. This administration has constructed poor-quality roads without the necessary planning, leading to obstructed traffic and increasingly damaging floods. This rainy season alone has exposed poor design and construction in several areas. More importantly for this discussion, the amount of money this Adama Barrow government lost in the Senegambia Bridge deal is higher than the value of all the roads that have been built. In other words, the public debt incurred to build those roads could have been avoided had the government competently negotiated just a single transport deal.
So while the country spends significant resources on the electricity and transport sectors, very little of it counts as investment. It is all recurrent expenditure that worsens the unfavorable status quo and ensures that the structural problems remain.
The exceptionally high public debt this government has incurred is not due to inherited legacy borrowing from earlier regimes. Nor is it due to unavoidable investment in necessary development. As with many countries under poor leadership, the debt was not only avoidable, but the resources borrowed were also poorly allocated.
The reality is that The Gambia’s public debt has been irresponsibly increased by the Adama Barrow administration, and the funds received have been grossly misallocated. It is a classic case of fiscal irresponsibility.
EFSCRJ calls on President Barrow to rescind the unconstitutional appointment of Edi MO Faal as chief justice
The Edward Francis Small Centre for Rights and Justice notes with grave concern the decision to swear-in Mr Edi MO Faal into office as Chief Justice of The Gambia by President Adama Barrow on 31 July 2026, when the tenure of the outgoing Chief Justice, Hassan B Jallow, had not yet expired. This unprecedented development effectively created a situation in which The Gambia had two chief justices simultaneously.
Our concern is further compounded by the circumstances surrounding Mr Faal’s appointment. On 13 July 2026, EFSCRJ issued a public statement demanding that the Government provide citizens with full and accurate information about the reported appointment. Our statement followed a press release issued by The Gambia Bar Association (GBA) on 9 July 2026 opposing the appointment on the grounds that Mr Faal did not meet the constitutional requirements prescribed under Section 139 of the 1997 Constitution.
Our intervention was also informed by the disturbing fact that, despite the constitutional importance of the office of Chief Justice, the Government had made no prior public announcement explaining its decision to appoint a new Chief Justice. EFSCRJ therefore specifically called on the President, “to ensure full transparency regarding the process, the constitutional basis, and the qualifications upon which Mr Edi MO Faal was considered for appointment as chief justice.”
Against this background, EFSCRJ reiterates our deep concern that the President proceeded with the appointment without any public explanation to clarify the concerns, and before the expiration of the incumbent chief justice’s tenure which was on 1 August 2026. While the Constitution does not require the President to publicly justify such appointments, the office of the chief justice is central to the administration of justice and the rule of law. Therefore, transparency and public accountability were essential to maintain public confidence in the Judiciary. We are therefore equally concerned that both the President and the Attorney General and Minister of Justice failed to respond to written requests from The Gambia Bar Association, even though the Bar is an integral stakeholder in the administration of justice.
The Gambia Bar Association has not only opposed the appointment but also announced in its press release of 31 July 2026 that it had “invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutional validity of the appointment.” It is profoundly troubling that an appointment to the highest judicial office should begin under circumstances that trigger immediate constitutional challenge.
From our review of the relevant provisions of the 1997 Constitution and Mr Faal’s publicly available résumé, EFSCRJ finds that Mr Faal falls short of satisfying the requirements stipulated under Section 139(1), (2) and (5). His résumé does not indicate that he has ever been appointed or served as a judge in The Gambia or elsewhere. Furthermore, we have seen no evidence that he practised as a legal practitioner for at least 12 years in a common law country as contemplated by the Constitution.
Although Mr Faal spent much of his legal career practicing in the United States and undoubtedly possesses an extensive and distinguished legal background, the United States is not a member of the Commonwealth. Nor has the National Assembly prescribed it as a common law country for the purposes of Section 139. Consequently, EFSCRJ concurs with The Gambia Bar Association that, notwithstanding his sterling legal career, Mr Faal does not meet the constitutional requirements for appointment as Chief Justice of The Gambia. EFSCRJ therefore stands in solidarity with The Gambia Bar Association in opposing this appointment. We urge the President to uphold and abide by the Constitution in accordance with his oath of office.
We consider the President’s decision to fall short of the fundamental requirements of constitutionalism and the rule of law. While the Constitution vests the power to appoint the chief justice in the President, that power is not unlimited. Like all public powers, it must be exercised within the constitutional boundaries, in good faith, and for the purpose for which it was conferred. The President’s decision to appoint Mr Faal also directly contradicts the Commonwealth Latimer House Principles, which require judicial appointments, tenure, discipline, and removal to be governed by transparent, lawful, and objective procedures.
President Barrow participated in the first-ever Tripartite Conference on the Commonwealth Latimer House Principles, held from 22 to 24 July 2026 at the Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara International Conference Centre and convened by the National Assembly. It is therefore deeply troubling that barely one week after this important gathering, the President would act in a manner that contradicts the commitments he made at the conference to safeguard democracy, uphold constitutionalism, and protect the independence of the Judiciary.
We accordingly call on President Adama Barrow to:
1. Rescind the appointment of Mr Edi MO Faal as chief justice, or take all necessary steps to preserve the integrity of the judicial process pending determination of the constitutional challenge brought by the GBA before the Supreme Court;
2. Disclose the process, advice, and constitutional basis upon which the appointment was made; and
3.Ensure that all future appointments of judicial officers strictly comply with the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
EFSCRJ reminds President Barrow that he has both a legal and ethical obligation to uphold the rule of law. Within 10 years of his presidency, the Supreme Court has ruled twice, that decisions taken by his administration were unconstitutional: first, the unlawful removal of nominated National Assembly Member, Ya Kumba Jaiteh in 2019, and second, the unlawful removal of former Auditor General Momodou Ceesay in 2025.
These are not minor administrative errors. Repeated disregard for the Constitution is a hallmark of authoritarian rule and clear grounds for impeachment. The Gambia endured 22 years of dictatorship until citizens rejected misrule in December 2016 and elected Adama Barrow with the expectation that the country would henceforth be governed according to the rule of law and constitutionalism. The promise of the new dispensation was to end lawlessness, abuse of power and impunity, and not to reproduce them.
This development must concern every citizen. EF Small Centre calls on civil society organisations, political parties, the media, professional bodies, religious and traditional leaders, and all sectors of Gambian society to stand firmly in defence of the Constitution against infringement from any quarter. When citizens tolerate disregard for the Constitution, especially by the President, we risk returning to the authoritarianism, lawlessness, and impunity that Gambians decisively rejected in 2016. The Constitution is supreme. No President, public official or institution is above it.