The Civic Scribe: Articles & Poems

In the heart of West Africa, a quiet democracy that has endured much is now facing a critical test of its institutional integrity. The Gambia, which transitioned from a 22-year dictatorship to democracy less than a decade ago, now finds itself at a constitutional crossroads following the forcible removal of Auditor General Momodou Ceesay by security forces. This incident isn’t merely a domestic political dispute; it represents a bellwether for democratic resilience in a region increasingly characterized by democratic backsliding and military takeovers.

The images of police physically ejecting the country’s chief financial watchdog from his office should alarm anyone who cares about democratic accountability. President Adama Barrow’s administration claims this was merely a routine cabinet reshuffle gone awry, but the evidence suggests a more sinister pattern of attempted institutional capture.

The facts of the case are deeply troubling. President Barrow announced he was appointing Ceesay to a ministerial position. Ceesay promptly declined the appointment, stating his commitment to remaining as auditor general. Rather than respecting this decision, the government insisted Ceesay had initially accepted the position and then changed his mind—a claim the auditor general firmly denied.

What happened next exemplifies the abuse of power: Armed police officers from the Police Intervention Unit descended on the National Audit Office, forcibly removed Ceesay from his premises, and installed a replacement. This action represents a clear violation of both the Gambian Constitution and the National Audit Office Act.

The legal protections for Gambia’s auditor general were specifically designed to ensure independence from executive interference. The law permits removal only on three specific grounds: inability to perform the functions of office, misbehavior, or incompetence. None of these conditions apply to Ceesay’s case. Refusing a ministerial appointment does not constitute misbehavior or incompetence. If anything, it demonstrates commendable commitment to his oversight role.

President Barrow’s attempt to reassign Ceesay appears to be a thinly veiled effort to neutralize an effective accountability institution. Sources suggest Ceesay was investigating irregularities in key government procurement and trade-related contracts, which might have prompted attempts to sideline him. This pattern is familiar to those who have watched other fragile democracies backslide into authoritarian practices—the systematic weakening of independent institutions that provide checks on executive power.

The presidency’s actions demonstrate either a fundamental misunderstanding of democratic governance or a deliberate flouting of it. The auditor general’s office is constitutionally mandated to be independent and central to public accountability. It cannot function effectively if its leader serves at the pleasure of the president rather than being protected by legal safeguards.

Barrow’s government came to power on the promise of democratic reform following the authoritarian rule of Yahya Jammeh. This incident suggests troubling continuities with the previous regime’s disregard for institutional independence and legal processes. The government’s subsequent arrest of activists protesting Ceesay’s removal further reinforces this pattern.

The Gambian public’s response to these events has been remarkably robust. Young activists have mobilized, threatening mass protests if Ceesay is not reinstated. Civil society organizations have issued strongly worded statements condemning the constitutional violation. Staff at the National Audit Office physically attempted to block police from removing their boss, forming a human shield around him. This resistance demonstrates that The Gambia’s democratic spirit remains alive, even if its institutions are under attack.

The government’s heavy-handed response to dissent suggests an administration increasingly insecure about criticism. As one activist correctly noted, these actions represent “an affront to our hard-won democracy.”

The Gambia’s political crisis carries significance far beyond its small borders. West Africa has recently experienced an alarming wave of democratic regression, with military coups in several neighboring countries. The Gambia has been held up as a positive example of democratic transition in the region. If it succumbs to executive overreach and institutional degradation, it would represent another devastating blow to democratic governance in West Africa.

The international community, particularly regional bodies, should be paying close attention. The Gambia’s democratic success is crucial not only for its citizens but as a counterweight to the authoritarian trends gaining ground in the region. The methodical weakening of checks and balances—exemplified by the attack on the audit office—often precedes more dramatic democratic breakdowns.

This crisis remains resolvable if President Barrow chooses to step back from the brink. The government should immediately reinstate Ceesay as auditor general pending a proper legal review, withdraw security forces from the audit office, release arrested activists, subject the removal question to review by an independent legal body, and reform appointment procedures to ensure no public appointment is announced before written acceptance is secured.

Reinstating Ceesay, or subjecting the matter to independent legal review, would not be a sign of weakness. It would be a demonstration of maturity, of respect for the rule of law, and of a commitment to institutional integrity.

The Gambia stands at a pivotal moment. President Barrow’s decision to forcibly remove the auditor general represents more than a political miscalculation—it is a fundamental test of The Gambia’s democratic commitment. How this situation is resolved will determine whether The Gambia continues on a path toward consolidated democracy or joins its neighbors in democratic retreat.

The office of auditor general might seem like a technical, bureaucratic position, but it serves as a critical check on executive power. Without independent audit institutions, governments can misappropriate public funds with impunity, corruption flourishes, and public trust erodes. This is why The Gambia’s Constitution specifically insulated the position from political interference.

What happens next depends on whether President Barrow recognizes that true leadership involves respecting constitutional boundaries rather than testing them. It depends on whether Gambian citizens continue to demand accountability from their leaders. And it depends on whether the international community recognizes the significance of this moment for democratic survival in West Africa.

The Gambia has endured much worse than this political crisis. It survived two decades of dictatorship and emerged with a commitment to democratic governance. That hard-won progress should not be squandered over a president’s bruised ego or desire to avoid accountability.

Democracy is not just about elections; it is about what happens between elections—the daily respect for institutional independence, the protection of dissent, and the adherence to constitutional processes. By these measures, The Gambia’s democracy is being tested. We must hope it passes this test.