Dear Editor,
As The Gambia approaches a pivotal presidential election, every institution must defend democracy, uphold the rule of law, and preserve public confidence.
Yet constitutional governance requires not only action within one’s mandate but restraint beyond it. The National Human Rights Commission’s recent advisory opinion raises the central question of whether civic advocacy has crossed into the constitutional terrain of another independent institution.
Democracy is sustained not merely by good intentions but by respect for constitutional boundaries. Every institution created by law derives its legitimacy from a clearly defined mandate, and a constitutional order’s strength depends on each institution exercising its powers without encroaching on another’s.
This principle is especially important during an election season, when public trust in national institutions becomes as important as the electoral process itself. Against this backdrop, the recent advisory opinion issued by the chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) deserves careful reflection.
Let us be clear from the outset. The issue is not whether peace should be protected, human rights respected, or citizens entitled to fair treatment under the law. These principles are fundamental to any democratic society and should command universal agreement.
The real question is whether the NHRC should publicly intervene in an on-going constitutional and electoral controversy that falls within the competence of other constitutionally established institutions.
The NHRC occupies an important place in The Gambia’s democratic framework. Established to promote and protect human rights, monitor compliance with international obligations, investigate violations, and contribute to a culture of constitutionalism, it serves an indispensable role in safeguarding democratic values and fundamental freedoms.
However, determining presidential candidates’ eligibility is not among its constitutional functions. That responsibility belongs to the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), subject where necessary to interpretation and review by the courts.
While the NHRC chairperson repeatedly acknowledges in the advisory opinion that the IEC must be allowed to exercise its mandate independently and that constitutional questions should ultimately be left to the courts, the statement still goes considerably further.
It discusses questions surrounding Section 62(3)(c) of the Constitution, the findings of the Local Government Commission of Inquiry, the legal implications of the government whitepaper, pending appeals, perceived inconsistencies in implementation, and concerns regarding selective application of the law.
These are not merely human rights concerns. They are substantive legal and constitutional questions. They are precisely the kinds of matters that the IEC must determine in the first instance and that the courts may ultimately be called upon to interpret authoritatively.
One must therefore ask: if these issues properly belong before the IEC and, where necessary, the judiciary, why should another independent constitutional institution enter the debate at all?
The concern is not that the NHRC has issued an opinion. The concern is that the opinion touches directly upon a matter actively before another institution whose independence the NHRC itself says must be respected.
In matters of constitutional governance, appearance can be almost as important as reality. Institutions must avoid not only actual interference but also the perception of interference.
When an independent commission publicly discusses a live legal dispute involving a named presidential aspirant in the midst of an election season, questions inevitably arise about whether it is venturing beyond its mandate.
Such perceptions may be unfair, but constitutional institutions must always be mindful of how their interventions affect public confidence. Preserving credibility often requires restraint.
Indeed, a meaningful distinction exists between defending a principle and commenting on a specific dispute.
The NHRC is fully entitled to defend the right to political participation, due process, equality before the law, freedom of expression, and peaceful political engagement. Such advocacy lies at the heart of its mission.
More difficult to justify is the commission’s engagement with the legal merits of an on-going controversy concerning a specific individual’s eligibility to contest an election.
The legal consequences of findings made by a commission of inquiry, the significance of a government whitepaper, and the interpretation of constitutional disqualification provisions are matters of law. They do not fall within the NHRC’s adjudicative responsibility. That responsibility belongs to the IEC in the first instance and, where necessary, to the courts.
The NHRC would have lost none of its moral authority had it restricted its intervention to a broad appeal for peace, respect for democratic institutions, protection of rights, and commitment to non-violence.
Such a statement would have remained firmly within its mandate and would likely have attracted little controversy.
By venturing into questions already before institutions specifically empowered to address them, however, the commission risks blurring the constitutional lines that safeguard democratic governance.
This observation should not be understood as an attack on the NHRC—quite the opposite.
Independent institutions remain among the most important safeguards of The Gambia’s democracy.
Their existence reflects the constitutional lessons learned from a painful period in our national history when excessive concentration of power undermined accountability, liberty, and human dignity.
Precisely because these institutions matter, their credibility must be protected. That credibility depends on independence and adherence to constitutional limits.
Our democracy does not require every institution to speak on every controversy. It requires each institution to perform its own role faithfully and competently. The Executive must govern. The Legislature must legislate. The Judiciary must interpret the law. The IEC must administer elections. And the NHRC must continue its vital mission of protecting and promoting human rights.
When institutions remain within their constitutional lanes, public confidence grows. When institutional boundaries become blurred, uncertainty follows.
As The Gambia moves toward another historic election, we should resist the temptation to measure democratic success solely by electoral outcomes.
Equally important is whether our institutions show the maturity, discipline, and restraint needed to fulfil their constitutional responsibilities without overreach.
Democratic governance is not strengthened when institutions compete for relevance. It is strengthened when each institution understands both the extent of its authority and the limits of its mandate.
That is the essence of constitutionalism. That is the foundation of the rule of law. And that is the institutional wisdom required to preserve the democratic gains Gambians have worked so hard to achieve.
Alagi Yorro Jallow
USA
