By an anonymous Policy Analyst within the Barrow administration.
Curbing Irregular Migration Should Not Be a Competition for Credit.
Efforts to curb irregular migration are meant to protect lives, uphold the rule of law, and safeguard national stability. Yet increasingly, what should be a coordinated national priority risks being reduced to a contest for visibility, funding, and institutional credit. When that happens, the mission is diluted—and the consequences are real.
Irregular migration is not a new challenge, nor is it one that any single institution can resolve. It sits at the intersection of border control, intelligence, law enforcement, and social policy. That is precisely why multiple stakeholders are involved. Each security institution has a clearly defined mandate, shaped by law and necessity. Respecting those mandates is not a bureaucratic formality; it is the foundation of effective action.
When institutions begin to overlap unnecessarily, compete for recognition, or operate outside their core responsibilities, coordination suffers. Instead of complementing one another, agencies risk duplicating efforts or, worse, working at cross-purposes. In such an environment, resources are wasted, intelligence is fragmented, and operational efficiency declines. Most troublingly, the real objective—reducing unsafe and irregular migration—takes a back seat.
Equally concerning is the growing perception that, for some, migration control has become a source of income or institutional leverage. Whether through donor funding, project ownership, or public visibility, the incentive structure appears misaligned. If success is measured by who leads a project or secures the most funding, rather than by tangible outcomes, then the system encourages competition rather than collaboration.
This is where leadership becomes critical. The Office of the National Security Adviser is uniquely positioned to ensure coherence across institutions. But coordination cannot be passive. It requires clear direction, enforceable frameworks, and consistent oversight. Roles must be defined and respected. Agreed protocols must guide joint operations. Information sharing must be the norm, not the exception.
More importantly, accountability must be strengthened. Institutions should be evaluated based on measurable impact—disrupting smuggling networks, improving border management, and addressing root causes—not on visibility or rhetoric. Without this shift, even well-funded initiatives risk producing limited results.
At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that irregular migration cannot be solved solely through enforcement. Economic opportunity, education, and legal migration pathways all play a role in shaping decisions. A whole-of-government approach is essential, bringing together security, development, and social policy under a unified strategy.
If there is a genuine commitment to curbing irregular migration, then the current approach must be reassessed. The issue is too serious to be treated as an avenue for competition or self-promotion. It demands discipline, coordination, and above all, respect for institutional mandates.
The way forward is not complicated—but it does require political will. Align incentives with outcomes. Empower coordination with the authority. And ensure that every stakeholder understands that success is shared, not claimed.
Only then can efforts to curb irregular migration move beyond rhetoric and begin to deliver meaningful, lasting results.
Your support means the world to us! Please follow our page to keep up with our latest posts, and don’t forget to hit that like button and share our content with your friends. Thank you for being a part of the OPEN GAMBIA PLATFORM community. By Anon 29 April 2026! Views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of TheOpenGambiaPlatform!
You can now write for the Open Gambia Platform, share information anonymously, and join the community. Please share your stories!
