Veteran journalist Alagi Yorro Jallow has criticized the Gambia Bar Association, describing its challenge to the appointment of Edi M.O. Faal as Chief Justice as "selective courage." Mr. Jallow stated that while the Bar Association is within its rights to challenge Mr. Faal's appointment, he questioned its lack of similar institutional response during past periods of constitutional violations. The Bar Association claims Mr. Faal's appointment violates Section 139(2) of the 1997 Constitution. Mr. Jallow is a critic of the Gambia Bar Association's challenge to the appointment of Edi M.O. Faal as Chief Justice. He described the Bar Association's current constitutional activism as "selective courage."
Mr. Jallow argued that the Bar Association's current actions represent an "institutional retreat" compared to its silence during previous administrations. "For twenty-two years under Yahya Jammeh, the Constitution was not merely violated — it was mutilated," Mr. Jallow stated, adding that during that period, the Bar Association "remained silent." He further questioned, "Where was this Bar when the Constitution was bleeding?" Mr. Jallow emphasized that "institutional accountability is indispensable," and if the Bar Association genuinely believes Section 139 has been violated, it has "a constitutional duty...to seek judicial review" by filing a suit. Mr. Jallow stated that the Bar Association's decision to challenge Mr. Faal's appointment is within its rights but questioned the lack of similar institutional response during previous periods of constitutional violations. He noted that the Bar Association claims the appointment of Edi M.O. Faal violates Section 139(2) of the 1997 Constitution.
Echoes of the Past
Mr. Jallow stated that during the dictatorship, Gambians demonstrated courage in defending the Constitution through legal challenges, even when fear was prevalent and the judiciary was under pressure. He stated that during the dictatorship, Gambians found the courage to defend the Constitution in court when fear was a daily currency and the judiciary was under siege. He recalled a specific instance from 2001 when the United Democratic Party, the National Reconciliation Party, and Minority Leader Kemesseng Jammeh initiated a constitutional challenge. This case contested the removal of Independent Electoral Commission Chairman Gabriel John Roberts. Mr. Jallow characterized the 2001 legal action as "a bold act of constitutional patriotism," noting that it occurred at a time when challenging government decisions involved significant risks. Mr. Jallow described the 2001 case as "a bold act of constitutional patriotism" pursued at a time when challenging government decisions carried significant risks.
Alagi Yorro Jallow asserted that the Constitution was extensively undermined for twenty-two years under Yahya Jammeh's rule. He stated, "For twenty-two years under Yahya Jammeh, the Constitution was not merely violated — it was mutilated. Judges were fired at midnight. Ombudsmen were dismissed without tribunals. IEC chairpersons were hired and fired like clerks. Chief Justices were appointed without meeting constitutional requirements. And through all of this, the Gambia Bar Association — the supposed guardian of the rule of law — remained silent." During this period, Mr. Jallow noted that the Gambia Bar Association did not convene an emergency meeting, issue any resolutions, or challenge the excesses of the dictatorship. Mr. Jallow stated that for twenty-two years under Yahya Jammeh, the Constitution was "mutilated." He cited examples of constitutional violations during the Jammeh era, including judges fired at midnight, ombudsmen dismissed without tribunals, Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) chairpersons hired and fired like clerks, and Chief Justices appointed without meeting constitutional requirements. Mr. Jallow stated that the Gambia Bar Association "remained silent" during the Jammeh era. He asserted that the Bar Association did not convene an emergency meeting, issue a resolution, or challenge excesses of dictatorship during the Jammeh era.
Institutional Integrity Questioned
Mr. Jallow characterized the Bar Association's current actions, which include issuing press releases and monitoring developments, as an "institutional retreat" rather than "constitutional guardianship." He acknowledged that the Bar had filed a case before the Supreme Court regarding the judicial appointments but maintained that the institution's history must be part of the national conversation. Mr. Jallow argued that institutional credibility depends on consistency, asserting that the Bar has not demonstrated the same energy, consistency, and courage when stakes were far higher in previous periods. He acknowledged that the Bar had filed a case before the Supreme Court but maintained that the institution's history must be part of the national conversation.
He further stated that individual heroism cannot be used to "launder institutional timidity." Mr. Jallow emphasized that the future of Gambian democracy depends on institutional integrity, not personal heroism. He concluded that the debate should not be reduced to personalities, but rather to ideas, institutions, and historical inconsistencies. Alagi Yorro Jallow stated, "The future of Gambian democracy depends not on personal heroism but on institutional integrity. The Bar Association must be judged not by the courage of individual members, but by its collective willingness to defend constitutionalism consistently, in moments of danger, not only in moments of comfort." Mr. Jallow distinguished between the courage of individual lawyers and the responsibility of the Bar Association as an institution. He stated that individual heroism cannot be used to "launder institutional timidity." He stated that the future of Gambian democracy depends on institutional integrity, not personal heroism. Mr. Jallow concluded that the debate should not be reduced to personalities, but to ideas, institutions, and historical inconsistencies.
The Bar's Current Stance
Alagi Yorro Jallow argued that constitutional disputes should be resolved through the courts rather than through public campaigns. He stated that if the Gambia Bar Association believes a constitutional violation has occurred, its duty is to seek judicial review by filing a suit. Mr. Jallow emphasized that while the Bar Association has indeed filed a case before the Supreme Court regarding the judicial appointments, its current actions, including issuing press releases and monitoring developments, represent an "institutional retreat" rather than "constitutional guardianship." He maintained that the institution's history of engagement, or lack thereof, must be part of the national conversation surrounding its present stance. Mr. Jallow argued that constitutional disputes should be resolved through courts rather than public campaigns.
Mr. Jallow also distinguished between the courage demonstrated by individual lawyers and the institutional responsibility of the Bar Association as a collective body. He asserted that individual heroism cannot be used to "launder institutional timidity." Mr. Jallow reiterated that the future of Gambian democracy depends on institutional integrity, not personal heroism. He contended that the debate should focus on ideas, institutions, and historical inconsistencies rather than personalities. According to Mr. Jallow, the Bar Association must be judged by its collective willingness to consistently defend constitutionalism, especially during periods of significant danger, and not only when circumstances are more comfortable.
Defending the Appointee
Mr. Jallow defended Mr. Edi M.O. Faal against criticism regarding his age and appointment, arguing that The Gambia should not discourage experienced Gambians from returning home to contribute to national development. He compared Mr. Faal's return to that of Dr. Lamin J. Sise, who chaired the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission after years of international service. Mr. Jallow asserted that public service must be judged by a proven record, not by suspicion. "Public service must be judged by record, not suspicion," Mr. Jallow stated, adding, "The question should not be: ‘Why is he returning at 70?’ but rather: ‘Why do we discourage accomplished Gambians from returning to strengthen our institutions?’" He also rejected claims that Mr. Faal's appointment was motivated by retirement benefits, clarifying that any pension is attached to the judicial office itself, not to the individual appointee. Mr. Jallow defended Mr. Faal against criticism regarding his age and appointment, arguing the country should not discourage experienced Gambians from returning home to contribute. He compared Mr. Faal's return to that of Dr. Lamin J. Sise, who chaired the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission after years of international service. Mr. Jallow argued that public service must be judged by record, not suspicion. Mr. Jallow rejected claims that Mr. Faal's appointment was motivated by retirement benefits, stating the pension is attached to the office, not the individual.