On April 29, 2026, the Ministry of Lands, Regional Government and Religious Affairs convened a national stakeholder validation workshop at the NaNA Conference Hall in The Gambia. This significant event, hosted by a key government ministry, aimed to bring together various parties to discuss key land-related initiatives. The workshop agenda specifically addressed the National Land Policy Communication Strategy and the Real Estate Agents Bill, two documents poised to shape the future of land governance and transactions within the country. Funding for the workshop was provided by the WACA Project, indicating an international dimension to the support for these reform efforts. The WACA Project, a notable contributor to development initiatives, specifically finances such projects within The Gambia’s vital coastal zone, an area often subject to intense land use pressures and environmental concerns.
However, a critical observation from the proceedings was the conspicuous absence of several key stakeholders. Civic groups, land rights advocacy organizations, and think tanks were notably absent from the proceedings, raising questions about the breadth of consultation. Communities currently involved in active land disputes were also not represented at the workshop, despite being directly impacted by the policies under discussion. This lack of inclusion for those most directly affected by land issues showed a potential disconnect between the stated goals of reform and the practical execution of the consultation process. The communities that the policy concerns received no invitation to the workshop, a fact that casts a shadow over the inclusivity of the validation process.
The Evolving Architecture of Predation
Despite the criticisms regarding stakeholder representation, the Ministry of Lands, Regional Government and Religious Affairs reaffirmed its commitment to land reforms. The Ministry concluded its efforts by reaffirming its commitment to land reforms that foster peace, reduce disputes, and support national development. These efforts, it stated, aim to foster peace, reduce disputes, and support national development, painting a picture of a government striving for systemic improvement. Permanent Secretary (Technical) Ebrima Sissawo noted the urgency of such reforms, stating that "75 per cent of all court cases in The Gambia concern land." This staggering figure shows the prevalence and severity of land-related conflicts within the country's legal system, making the need for effective policy intervention undeniable. The WACA Project, which financed the workshop, primarily supports development initiatives within The Gambia’s coastal zone, further emphasizing the specific regional focus of some of these broader land-related challenges.
Kissima Bittaye, Principal Legislative Draftsperson at the Attorney General’s Chambers, took the floor to present the Real Estate Agents Bill during the workshop. Bittaye described the bill as "a vehicle for stronger regulation, transparency, and accountability within The Gambia’s rapidly growing real estate sector." This proposed legislation seeks to introduce more structured oversight into the industry, an area often characterized by informal practices and a lack of clear guidelines. The aim is to professionalize real estate transactions, protect consumers, and ensure a more equitable market for all participants. The introduction of such a bill suggests an acknowledgement from the government that the real estate sector requires significant statutory intervention to address existing inefficiencies and potential malpractices.
Meanwhile, a significant historical context to current land discussions is the mandate of the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC). The TRRC excluded land and property disputes from its mandate, a decision that has had lasting implications. This means that while the TRRC addressed various human rights violations from the past, it did not investigate or make recommendations concerning land ownership or property conflicts. This exclusion left a substantial gap in addressing historical injustices related to land, effectively deferring these complex issues to other mechanisms or leaving them unresolved. The absence of a dedicated truth and reconciliation process for land disputes means that many grievances from previous eras remain unaddressed, potentially contributing to the ongoing prevalence of land-related court cases.
Exclusion and Security Over Community Voice
The composition of attendees at the workshop further illuminated the perceived priorities of the organizers. Communities directly affected by the proposed land policy reforms were not invited to participate in the workshop, a glaring omission given the stated purpose of validation. This exclusion directly contradicted the spirit of inclusive governance and stakeholder engagement. The formal ministry invitation, however, listed the Director General of the State Intelligence Services as item 24 among the attendees, signaling a curious emphasis on state security presence at a policy validation event. This presence, particularly when contrasted with the absence of affected communities, raises questions about the underlying objectives and atmosphere of the workshop.
Further compounding concerns about representation, the National Human Rights Commission was absent from the proceedings, as was the judiciary. The absence of these key institutions, tasked with upholding rights and administering justice, suggests a limited scope of engagement for bodies vital to ensuring fairness and legality in land reforms. The judiciary, in particular, handles the vast majority of land cases, making their non-participation a significant oversight in a workshop aimed at reducing disputes.
A numerical analysis of the attendees reveals a telling imbalance. The real estate industry held a greater number of seats at the workshop compared to most government ministries, noting the significant influence and presence of commercial interests. This disparity in representation points towards a potential prioritization of economic stakeholders over community and rights-based organizations. Among the traditional leadership, the alkalo of Brufut attended the workshop, alongside Chief Falalou Touray of Kombo South. Chief Touray, representing a vital segment of traditional authority, stated that he "called for the active involvement of traditional leaders as implementation partners." This call shows the critical role traditional leaders play in land governance, particularly at the local level, and their desire for more meaningful engagement.
The legal profession, a key player in navigating land disputes, also had limited representation. The Gambia Bar Association had one participant at the workshop, a surprisingly low figure given the legal complexities inherent in land policy and real estate legislation. In stark contrast, the Association of Real Estate Agencies was represented by three participants, further emphasizing the disproportionate presence of commercial real estate interests compared to legal and community advocacy groups. This imbalance raises concerns about whose voices were truly validated and prioritized during the policy discussion.
Undermining Restitution and Reform
A particularly contentious aspect of the land policy reform process involves the issue of restitution. On April 1, 2026, the minister assured the author that the state would not impede community legal efforts to reclaim land, offering a glimmer of hope for affected communities seeking justice. This assurance suggested a commitment to supporting communities in recovering land that may have been unlawfully acquired or dispossessed. However, this commitment proved to be short-lived.
The cabinet later removed the restitution provision from the validated National Land Policy, a decision that sent shockwaves through land rights circles. This reversal followed a National Validation Workshop in June 2025, which had produced a stakeholder-validated draft of the policy containing clear and explicit restitution mechanisms in Section 6.7.2. The inclusion of these mechanisms in the earlier draft indicated that a broad range of stakeholders, at that time, recognized the importance of addressing past land injustices through restitution. The subsequent removal by the cabinet, therefore, represents a significant departure from previously established consensus and an undermining of stakeholder input.
The cabinet's removal of the restitution provision occurred in September 2025, several months after the initial validation workshop. This timeline suggests a deliberate decision-making process that ultimately prioritized other considerations over the inclusion of restitution. Subsequently, the revised National Land Policy was officially launched on December 22, 2025. Crucially, this launch took place without any prior community consultation or public explanation regarding the changes made to the policy, especially the removal of the critical restitution clause. This lack of transparency and engagement surrounding such a fundamental alteration to the policy has fueled distrust and reinforced the perception that the reform process is not genuinely inclusive or responsive to community needs. The absence of an explanation for such a significant policy shift leaves communities and advocates questioning the true intent behind the government's land reform agenda. The process, from the exclusion of key groups at the workshop to the unilateral removal of restitution clauses, appears to prioritize a top-down approach over genuine community participation and redress.
