On April 30, 2025, The Republic published an article titled “The Assets of Gambia’s former dictator go for a song.” The report has prompted a demand for an apology from a former official who claims the publication contained false assertions. The author of the article states that each of these assertions was false and misrepresented collective government decisions as personal actions. This challenge to The Republic's reporting notes ongoing scrutiny regarding the handling and reporting of assets linked to the former Gambian dictator, Jammeh. The article's content specifically focused on the financial implications and ownership of these assets. The former Attorney General, who is the subject of the article, has vehemently denied the allegations, asserting that the claims made in the publication were factually incorrect and unfairly attributed governmental actions to his individual discretion.
Context of Assets Disposal
The article, which is the subject of the former Attorney General's demand for an apology, was funded by Deutsche Gesellschaft Fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). Regarding the handling of former President Jammeh's assets, former Cabinet ministers Ousainu Darboe and Hamat Bah have publicly addressed decisions made. Ousainu Darboe confirmed in The Standard newspaper on May 9, 2025, that the unfreezing of TDA lands was a Cabinet-approved government policy. Hamat Bah similarly stated before the National Assembly Special Select Committee on November 25, 2025, that the decision to unfreeze these lands was a Cabinet-approved government policy. These public statements show the collective nature of the decisions made concerning these assets, contrasting with the article's portrayal of individual actions.
The Janneh Commission, tasked with investigating Jammeh's financial dealings, recommended the appointment of a new receiver for the assets, a recommendation the government accepted through its White Paper. This governmental acceptance of the commission's recommendation laid the groundwork for subsequent appointments and management of the seized properties. Following the author's departure, the government renewed Alpha Barry's appointment as receiver every six months for six years. This prolonged and repeated renewal by the government further suggests a sustained, institutional endorsement of Barry's role, rather than a singular, personal appointment. The offer to repurchase the Sompo Ceesay property was not a unilateral action but a decision made by the Ministerial Taskforce. This offer was extended to multiple parties involved in the asset recovery process, indicating a broader, coordinated effort rather than a personal decision.
Allegations and Author's Rebuttals
The article contained allegations that the author manipulated a court decision, acted alone in unfreezing Tourism Development Area (TDA) lands, unlawfully terminated a court-appointed receiver, and unilaterally appointed Alpha Barry as receiver. Further claims in the report included that the author involved a friend or future spouse as a sales agent and personally decided to offer the “Sompo Ceesay” family the opportunity to repurchase their property. These assertions form the core of the former Attorney General's demand for an apology from The Republic. The author states each of these assertions was false and misrepresented collective government decisions as personal actions, arguing that the publication failed to accurately reflect the collaborative decision-making processes within the government.
Regarding the termination of a court-appointed receiver, the author's rebuttal states that the receiver's mandate actually expired in accordance with Section 51(8) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2012. This clarification counters the allegation of unlawful termination by asserting that the cessation of the receiver's duties was a matter of legal process and not a unilateral action. The legal framework reportedly dictated the duration of the appointment, leading to its natural conclusion and negating any claim of arbitrary dismissal. This legal expiration shows that the receiver was not "terminated" by the author but rather that their term concluded as per the existing laws.
Alpha Barry's appointment as receiver was also addressed in the author's response. The author contended that this appointment was not a unilateral decision but was collectively approved by the Ministerial Taskforce, a body established by the President. Hamat Bah, a member of this Taskforce, affirmed this collective approval during a session of the National Assembly Special Select Committee on November 25, 2025. This statement provides attribution for the assertion that the appointment was a government-wide decision rather than an individual's choice, further emphasizing the collaborative nature of the decision-making process. The Ministerial Taskforce's role in this appointment notes that the decision was a result of inter-ministerial consensus and presidential directive, not solely the act of one individual.
Finally, the article's suggestion of a sales agent's involvement in the disposal of assets was refuted. The author clarified that there was no role for a sales agent in the public bidding process for Jammeh assets. This detail indicates that the mechanism for selling off the assets was designed without intermediary sales agents, contradicting the allegation that a friend or future spouse was involved in such a capacity. The public bidding process was structured to ensure transparency and prevent undue influence, further distancing the author from the alleged personal involvement in sales.
Reputational Harm and Media Responsibility
The author claims The Republic's article inflicted significant reputational harm, fostered public hostility, and led to professional consequences. These included instigating public sentiment, online harassment, petitions against his candidature for International Court of Justice (ICJ) judge, and a subsequent withdrawal of endorsement for his ICJ candidature. The author stated that while the article's writer worked on their story for two years, only one week was provided for a response to the allegations. The publication itself reportedly occurred on the same date as the deadline given for the author's response, raising questions about the fairness and balance of the reporting process. This compressed timeline for response, coupled with the immediate publication, suggests a lack of due diligence in allowing the subject of the article adequate time to provide his perspective before the story went public.
The author further claims to have previously advocated for media law reforms, specifically supporting the deletion of criminal defamation or sedition from the Criminal Code. He stated that he served as Attorney General, having given up a well-paid international position to return home. During his tenure, the author claims he initiated and managed a transitional justice process, demonstrating a commitment to legal and societal reforms in his home country. His past advocacy for media freedom and his personal sacrifice in returning to public service show his concern about the impact of what he considers to be defamatory reporting. The former Attorney General's demand for an apology is thus framed not just as a personal grievance, but also as a call for media accountability and adherence to journalistic ethics, especially given the severe professional and personal repercussions he has faced.
