The Republic took a deep dive into the sale of the assets of former president Yahya Jammeh, which were forfeited to the state. And at the heart of this story are questionable behaviours by former justice minister Abubacarr Tambadou. Yesterday, Tambadou, who claimed the story was misleading, sent it for publication to various platforms, including The Republic, a rejoinder that contained the answers he sent to The Republic. The good thing about this is that while Tambadou questioned the judgment of The Republic, he believed the public would read it with honesty and hopefully give him honest feedback.
The first thing to address is that the rejoinder should not have been published by any platform that did not publish the original story. This is an elementary practice in journalism, and all the platforms that have published it should know it better.
Well, here is my view of his words vs. The Republic. First, the former president’s assets were sold while Tambadou was the AG. The fact that the entire process, its outcome, and all documents relating to it are the subject of tons of parliamentary questions and requests by tons of journalists, including when he was AG, says a lot. If there had been transparency in this process, all facts about the sale of Jammeh’s assets would have been published by him.
It is interesting reading his response to The Republic. It seems to me as a mere attempt to drown the journalists, who are not lawyers, in legal details to draw them away from the facts. But a lawyer reading it finds his answers even more suspicious.
His example of bail justifying the repeat application before Justice Ebrima Jaiteh is a case in point. Bail is a special case, and the procedure he explained, known to us as “repeat application”, is an exception to the general rule. Bail is a peculiar case. You cannot, therefore, take the exception (bail applications) as the rule on which to base a decision. All decisions, including judgments of the court, when delivered and a party is aggrieved; the party could only appeal to a higher court and not adjust facts and submit the same application to the same court.
Also, weeks before the vacation, the CJ will circulate a memo to members of the Bar through the Gambia Bar Association and the Ministry of Justice through the Solicitor General informing them that the court will break for vacation from August to October and further notify members of the vacation Judges on a shift basis throughout the vacation. Therefore, the former minister of Justice Tambadou would have known that Justice Jaiteh (and not Justice Saho) would be the vacation Judge before applying.
Also, he cannot just accept things because they were sanctioned by a Ministerial or Technical committee or even a commission recommendation. The Cabinet cannot accept a commission recommendation, especially where that recommendation appears contrary to law. The Ministerial or technical committees must have a TOR detailing their mandate and decision-making process. Suppose the subject matters before the committee are legal. In that case, the assumption is that the person with a background in law could and will dominate or even influence the outcome of the committee’s decision. We cannot, therefore, normalise things just because the committee sanctioned them. We need to interrogate the process.
Also, if the Janneh Commission recommended a receiver, it did not mention the particular receiver to appoint. They should have, therefore, opened the appointment of a receiver to a competitive bid. The appointment of commissioners, lead counsel, and other staff members was provided for by the constitution and the Commission of Inquiry Act, so the appointment of those people cannot be said to be subject to a bidding process. Indeed, that is different from the case of the receiver. In this case, the receiver was supposed to deliver a service covered by the GPPA Act. The fact that such appointments were not in the past subject to a bid does not give him the right not to subject the appointment of a receiver to a bid, more so when he was the AG.
Also, on the issue of the TDA lands, I refuse to believe that even if the land will ultimately come back to the Government, it should justify the preemption of a court or inquiry proceeding. That is simply thuggery and undemocratic. Moreover, Jammeh could have proved a good title to those lands. After all, he was at least paid a salary as President.
And what was a sitting AG doing inquiring about the application process of a plot of land to a private individual? The AG is the chief dispenser of justice in the country. Anyone wants them to be on your side. If he reaches out to a director of the Gambia Tourism Board or any member of the Board about any land application process, that land asked about naturally becomes of interest to the director general. Why did he ask about the land that was in the process of being allocated to Binta Sompo Ceesay?
Meanwhile, on Sunday, I saw the good judge Justice Ebrima Jaiteh adjust his earlier statement to say that he did not use the word ‘blindfolded’ to the journalist, demanding an apology. I know an individual who informed me that former minister Tambadou shares this statement with people, apparently using it to discredit the journalist. Sadly, Justice Jaiteh is doing this to himself, his name, and his good work history to serve the interests of Tambadou.
The word ‘blindfold’ was a word choice by the paper itself, characterising how they believed— based on available evidence— led to the release of the land in question. It was not in any quote, nor was it attributed. This story was never about Justice Jaiteh. They clarified that he said he was unaware that Justice Amina had refused the application before him. And that the Ministry of Justice failed to give him this fact. He also believes that the Ministry should have appealed Amina’s decision and not filed a fresh application before him (Justice Jaiteh). That characterisation is the textbook definition of the word ‘blindfold’. I hope Justice Jaiteh refused to allow Tambadou’s selfish agenda to drag him into a subject where he had zero business or interest.
In any case, Tambadou has raised more questions than answers, even in his own replies. We can see this in the withdrawal of support for his ambition to be a judge at the ICJ since the story came out.
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. Anon contributed to the article on 04th May 2025! 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!
