In April 2025, The Republic published an investigation by Mustapha K Darboe detailing the sale of assets forfeited from former President Jammeh. This investigation, a significant piece of public interest journalism, delved into the intricacies of how assets seized from former President Jammeh were handled and disposed of. Three days after the investigation was published, the publication released a 12-point rejoinder from former Attorney General Abubacarr Tambadou, directly addressing the claims made in Darboe's article. A year after his rejoinder, Mr. Tambadou formally demanded a public apology, a full retraction of the article, and its complete removal from The Republic's platforms. The original investigation by The Republic triggered widespread public demonstrations, prompting President Adama Barrow to publicly call for an investigation into the allegations, and ultimately led the National Assembly to establish a Select Committee to thoroughly examine the matter. In March 2026, the National Assembly Special Select Committee, following its extensive review, recommended a criminal investigation of Mr. Tambadou. The committee cited "systematic and deliberate violations of the Public Finance Act 2014" in its findings and described his actions as a "serious dereliction" of duty, pointing to significant concerns regarding his conduct while in office.
Constitutional Protections for Press
The Constitution of The Gambia provides strong protections for press freedom, underpinning the democratic principles of the nation. These protections are primarily enshrined through Section 25(1)(a) of the Constitution, which specifically addresses the fundamental right to freedom of expression, a cornerstone of any free society. Further reinforcing these safeguards, Chapter XIX of the Constitution is entirely dedicated to media provisions, outlining the framework within which the press operates. Section 207(1) of the Constitution explicitly states, "The freedom and independence of the press and other information media are hereby guaranteed." This powerful constitutional guarantee shows the nation's commitment to a free and unfettered press. This principle is further elaborated in Section 207(2), which mandates that the press "shall, at all times, be free to uphold the principles, provisions and objectives of this Constitution, and the responsibility and accountability of the Government to the people of The Gambia." This provision effectively assigns a key function of governmental accountability to a free press within The Gambia's constitutional framework, positioning the media as a vital check on power.
The National Assembly Special Select Committee, in its findings released in March 2026, showed the seriousness of the situation by recommending a criminal investigation into Mr. Tambadou. The committee's full report described Mr. Tambadou's conduct as a "serious dereliction" of duty, indicating a profound failure to meet the expected standards of his office. Beyond this, the committee also cited "systematic and deliberate violations of the Public Finance Act 2014" in its detailed findings, suggesting a pattern of disregard for established financial regulations. These parliamentary findings, which emerged from the scrutiny initiated by The Republic's article, may provide substantial support for the article’s central thrust concerning irregularities in the disposal of former President Jammeh’s assets, reinforcing the public interest served by the original investigation.
Legal Precedents and Defamation
While press freedom is constitutionally protected, Section 209 of The Gambia's Constitution permits limits on this freedom under specific circumstances. These limitations include those imposed under defamation law, particularly when such restrictions are deemed "reasonably required in a democratic society" to protect an individual's reputation. This balancing act between freedom of expression and the protection of individual rights is a common feature in many democratic legal systems. The Supreme Court of The Gambia provided significant clarification on these limitations in its landmark 2018 ruling in the case of Gambia Press Union v The Attorney General. In that key decision, the court struck down both criminal defamation laws and a portion of the sedition law, marking a significant victory for press freedom advocates in the country. In that ruling, Justice CS Jallow, delivering the court's opinion, established clear criteria for restricting freedoms. Justice Jallow emphasized that any such restrictions must meet stringent standards of clarity, lawfulness, legitimate aim, and proportionality, ensuring that limitations are not arbitrary or overly broad. The Supreme Court further differentiated between protecting an individual's reputation, which is a legitimate aim, and insulating the government from criticism, which is not. This distinction is key for maintaining a vibrant and critical press. The court also drew a clear distinction between factual reporting, which often involves verifiable information, and commentary or opinion, which typically reflects subjective viewpoints, in its 2018 decision.
It is noteworthy that Abubacarr Tambadou served as the Attorney General, representing the State in the very 2018 Supreme Court case that led to the striking down of criminal defamation laws. This historical context adds another layer of complexity to his current demand for retraction and apology. The Gambia currently has no civil defamation statute, meaning that the governing rules and principles for defamation claims are derived from English common law. This reliance on common law means that English court decisions made after 1965 carry persuasive weight in Gambian courts regarding defamation matters, providing a body of jurisprudence for judges to consider. Common law defenses available against defamation claims are strong and include truth, also widely known as justification, which asserts that the published statement is factually accurate. Another key defense is qualified privilege, which applies to fair and accurate reports of judicial or parliamentary proceedings, recognizing the public interest in such reporting. Additionally, the defense of honest opinion on a matter of public interest is available, provided that the opinion is based on indicated facts and is genuinely held.
The Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd. [2001] defense is a key precedent in common law jurisdictions, recognizing public-interest protection for responsible reporting. This defense is particularly relevant when assessing journalistic conduct in cases involving matters of significant public concern. The Reynolds defense considers several factors when determining whether reporting was responsible, including the seriousness of the allegation being made, the nature and reliability of the source of the information, the steps taken by the journalist to verify the information before publication, the urgency of the matter and the timing of the publication, whether comment was sought from the subject of the article prior to publication, the subject's response (if any), the tone of the article as a whole, and the circumstances of publication. These factors provide a full framework for evaluating journalistic responsibility. The Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2006] ruling further clarified that the Reynolds factors serve as practical guidance rather than a rigid checklist, respecting editorial judgment and the realities of newsgathering. This flexibility allows courts to assess each case on its merits without imposing an overly prescriptive approach. Additionally, the Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd. [2012] ruling held that responsible reporting of allegations under investigation may still be protected, even if those allegations are later proven untrue, acknowledging the dynamic nature of ongoing investigations and the public's right to know about them.
The Investigation and Its Aftermath
Mr. Tambadou's demand letter asserts that The Republic's article accused him of manipulating a court decision and misleading a vacation judge, allegations he strongly refutes. However, the article itself reported a statement on the record from Justice Ebrima Jaiteh regarding the ministry's second application to release lands. Justice Jaiteh's direct quote in the article was unequivocal: “They should have filed an appeal against the court decision at the Court of Appeal and not file[d] a fresh case before me. I was not aware of the [judgment] Amina made. It was an abuse of process.” This statement from a sitting judge directly questioned the procedural approach taken by the ministry.
The article also presented Mr. Tambadou’s differing account concerning the land release decisions, ensuring a balanced representation of perspectives. According to the article, Mr. Tambadou stated that decisions regarding the unfreezing of lands and the appointment of Alpha Kapital were made by a ministerial committee. This committee, he indicated, included prominent figures such as Mr. Hamat Bah and Mr. Musa Drammeh, suggesting a collective decision-making process. Additionally, the article characterized Ms. Binta Sompo Ceesay as a “sales agent” involved in the asset disposal process, detailing her role in the controversial transactions. The parliamentary findings, issued in March 2026, may provide substantial support for the article’s central thrust concerning irregularities in the disposal of former President Jammeh’s assets, adding significant weight to the investigative journalism conducted by The Republic. The public demonstrations, the presidential call for investigation, and the establishment of the National Assembly Select Committee all attest to the profound impact of Darboe's reporting and the widespread public interest in the accountability of government officials regarding the handling of forfeited assets.
