BY HALIFA SALLAH
11th May, 2025
The executive at the highest level was requested to give mandate to the chief of staff to liaise with me on how to address the situation that led to the arrest of many people with diverse background on 8th May 2025. The authorisation was given without reservation. After some correspondence with the Chief of Staff, it was agreed that the issue at hand was a police matter and could only be settled if I enter into dialogue with the Inspector General of Police, who is the guarantor of public order. The Chief of staff did not raise any objection to the expressed plan to meet the Inspector General of Police.
MEETING WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
When approached, the Inspector General of Police indicated that he was on tour but would not mind meeting me at the place of my choice on Saturday, 9th May 2025, to give due respect to my elderly status and my genuine concern on the subject matter. A discussion lasting more than an hour centred on three thematic issues.
a) The principles of public order governance and management
b) The background to the arrests of 8th May, 2025 and due process
c) The route to conciliation, resolution and prevention of recurrence
a) The principles of public order governance and management.
It was agreed that if the dialogue is to have focus, purpose and relevance in informing ways to address the situation that kept the nation waiting for a speedy and desirable outcome, as well as to mitigate or amputate any possibility of recurrence, the fundamentals of public order governance and management should be clear to the guarantor and agents for the maintenance of public order and the citizenry alike.
It was agreed that the space where the state renders public services of a civil or security nature to the population, and where there is social interaction among the people should be secure to enable all processes to take place without any hindrance.
That in a democratic society laws, rules and regulations are created to enable individuals to assemble to hold processions in the exercise of their freedom to associate in the form of unions, political parties and other civil societies.
There was agreement that the office of the Inspector General of Police and its agents should be deemed to be the enforcers of the laws and regulations to ensure public order. It was noted that where associations or group of individuals assemble or hold procession that is deemed to violate the laws on public order, they may be arrested and charged and the case subjected to the due process of law, without any fear or favour, affection or ill will. On the other hand, if associations or group of individuals conduct themselves in such way that suspicion is merited that they are about to violate the laws governing public order, they should first be asked to disperse to allay any suspicion or be arrested, if they fail to dispense. This should be followed by adherence to the due process of law in handling the case.
b) The background to the arrests of 8th May, 2025 and Due process
Those arrested were suspected of having the aim to violate public order laws after being denied a permit to hold procession. Concerns were raised by the IGP regarding the involvement of individuals who are prominent members of pollical parties, and those above 45 years and are still claiming to be youths. He expressed fear that there may be and their motives for holding these processions and wondered whether a release of all would be a wise decision to take instead of prosecuting, at least those he classified the ring leaders, to prevent recurrence. He expressed that they had listened to the concerns of some students from Nusrat Senior Secondary School to release all students. He emphasised that they would have observed the due process even without any intervention. He however welcomes dialogue and emphasised that the ring leaders may continue to pursue their motives if they are not prosecuted to allow the law to take its full course. Advice was given that a multi-stakeholder approach in finding a lasting solution may be the best way forward, after putting the current situation to rest, through dialogue and conciliation and not through prosecution. It was resolved that dialogue and consultation should continue to find the best way forward.
c) The route to conciliation, resolution and prevention of recurrence
The point was highlighted that the executive has a part to play in preventing developments that may lead to public reaction that could threaten public order. In this instance, matters regarding the outcome of the Janneh Commission, have come to the public notice through the findings of a journalist. The executive should therefore prevent matters of public concern from becoming public order issues by ensuring speedy Cabinet action to make public disclosures, followed by the adoption of concrete remedial measures to address any public concern.
Consensus was reached that the IGP could request engagement with the leaders of political parties, the IEC and the IPC to discuss whether or not, the conduct of known members are in line with the code of conduct of party-political operatives. Political parties may also take proactive measures to establish their own rules on the type of civil engagement that would befit their members in the public space.
Section 60 of the Constitution is clear. Only political parties can put up candidates in elections. Before one could stand for elections one must either be an Independent candidate, or be sponsored by a political party. Members of political parties are messengers of the party who should deliver its policies to the people. They are not messengers to deliver emotion in the street. The street deals with emotive incidents and not policies. Those who want change should spend most of their time mobilising the people for support of an independent candidate, or promote the policies of their party so that its sponsored candidates would have a good chance of winning.
Acknowledgement is made that the public should be sensitised not to stretch their grievances against certain officials or non-officials, to the extent where they come into confrontation, or violence with the law enforcers or security forces. A view is adequately conveyed that the office of guarantor of public order and its agents should be able to recognise a peaceful assembly, or procession that is to be held under their watchful eye. They should provide protection at peaceful assembly or procession, aimed at giving focus to negligence, or dereliction of duty long brought to the notice of officials by petitions and other alternative justice resolution measures not responded to. They should be able to distinguish these from those that are motivated by a plot to create public disorder to fish political power out of socially troubled waters. In the same vein, those who are guarantors of public order must seek to enforce the law without breaking the law and thus promote impunity. They must adhere to due process.
Lastly, Gambians have, on their lips, the clarion call “Never Again.” Insolence on the side of the citizenry and impunity on the side of the security will give rise to recurrence. Only civility, characterised by love of country and people, on the side of the citizenry, and chivalry characterised by abiding commitment to protect country and people, on the side of the guarantors of public order, would ensure the prevention of recurrence.
The end
