Introduction: A Defining Moment for Gambian Democracy.
Across my published political commentaries and essays on The Gambia’s democratic transition, one institution repeatedly emerges as pivotal, influential, and increasingly vulnerable: the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC). As the country edges toward the 2026 presidential elections, the IEC now stands at the centre of a profound democratic risk. The stakes for the incumbent are extraordinarily high. The stakes for the electorate, the custodians of sovereignty, are even higher. Should we trust the IEC to honestly, independently, and without bias deliver on the wishes of the people?
This paper consolidates and synthesises my analyses of the IEC, highlighting structural weaknesses, governance failures, allegations of corruption, and procedural vulnerabilities that collectively threaten the credibility of the 2026 presidential election. Without urgent scrutiny, transparency, and meaningful citizen oversight, the IEC itself risks becoming the weakest link in The Gambia’s already fragile democratic chain.
The IEC’s Central Role and Expanding Power:
In theory, the Independent Electoral Commission exists to guarantee neutrality, fairness, and integrity in elections. In practice, its authority is vast and largely unchecked. The Commission controls voter registration, the compilation and maintenance of the electoral register, the design and custody of ballot materials, polling procedures, vote counting, and the collation and declaration of final results.
This concentration of power places the IEC at the heart of the democratic process. In a political environment where institutions remain weak and accountability mechanisms underdeveloped, such authority demands exceptional transparency. That transparency, however, has been consistently lacking, raising legitimate concerns about institutional capture and political influence.
Voter Registration: The First Site of Democratic Manipulation:
Voter registration remains the most vulnerable stage of the electoral cycle. Control the register, and the outcome of an election can be quietly predetermined. My writings consistently highlight this stage as the primary site of democratic manipulation with minimal public visibility.
Key risks include the absence of independent audits of the voters’ register, opaque processes for adding, removing, or transferring voters, weak verification mechanisms, particularly in rural and border communities, and limited public access to inspect, challenge, or verify registration data.
In a high-stakes election where political survival is at issue, even marginal distortions in voter registration can decisively alter outcomes. Without robust scrutiny and citizen-led oversight, the voters’ register itself becomes a political instrument rather than a democratic safeguard.
Voter Inducement and the Normalisation of Electoral Corruption:
Another recurring concern in my analyses is the normalisation of voter inducement as an accepted political practice. Cash handouts, gifts, food distribution, and selective development promises are routinely deployed during electoral periods, often disguised as generosity or social support.
The IEC’s failure to robustly enforce regulations against voter inducement raises serious questions about its independence and resolve. When inducement goes unchallenged, elections cease to reflect free choice and instead become transactions. It corrodes public trust and undermines the moral foundation of democratic participation.
Allegations of Financial Impropriety Within the IEC:
Perhaps the most alarming issue addressed in my commentaries concerns allegations of millions of dalasis being paid into the private bank accounts of IEC officials. Such allegations strike at the very core of electoral integrity and cannot be treated as administrative footnotes or political distractions.
If electoral officials are financially compromised—through inducement, bribery, or unexplained enrichment—the entire electoral process becomes irreparably tainted. My position is unequivocal: any IEC official implicated in such allegations must not play any role whatsoever in the preparation, conduct, supervision, or declaration of the 2026 presidential elections.
Failure to investigate transparently, or attempts to quietly move past these allegations, would signal institutional decay and democratic regression.
Ballots, Counting, and the Declaration of Results:
Elections are often not lost at the ballot box, but after the polls close. My work highlights serious vulnerabilities in ballot custody, transportation, counting, and result declaration. These stages are frequently shielded from meaningful public scrutiny under the guise of technical complexity.
Limited observation during counting, centralised collation processes, and delayed or opaque result announcements create opportunities for manipulation and erode public confidence. Citizens are repeatedly asked to trust the process while being denied access to observe or verify it. Democracy cannot survive on trust alone; it requires visibility, participation, and verification.
The IEC as a Democratic Risk Factor:
Taken together, these issues reposition the IEC from a neutral referee to a potential democratic risk factor. This is not an argument against elections, but a warning about the conditions under which they are administered.
In post-dictatorship contexts, institutions can retain authoritarian habits while wearing democratic labels. Without scrutiny, the IEC risks becoming an instrument of political convenience rather than a guardian of popular will.
Citizen Control and Democratic Reclamation:
The central conclusion running through my articles is clear: the electoral process must be reclaimed by the people. Democracy is not sustained by institutions alone, but by active citizen engagement and oversight.
This requires complete transparency in voter registration, open access to the electoral register, independent audits of IEC finances and procedures, the exclusion of compromised officials from electoral roles, and robust domestic and international election observation.
Conclusion: 2026 as a Test of Democratic Survival:
The 2026 presidential election will not merely determine who governs The Gambia. It will decide whether democratic principles still carry meaning in a post-dictatorship state increasingly marked by institutional weakness and political expediency.
The IEC stands at a crossroads. It can either restore public confidence through transparency and accountability, or deepen democratic erosion through silence and complicity. The stakes for the incumbent are high. The stakes for the electorate are higher. This is the moment to scrutinise, to question, and to insist that the future of Gambian democracy is decided openly by its citizens.
By Salifu Manneh
