By: Alkali M. Dibba
Nearly a decade after the fall of one of Africa’s most divisive leaders, The Gambia faces a pivotal moment in its transition toward democratic governance and economic justice. The Gambian government’s recent decision to auction off the seized properties and assets of former President Yahya Jammeh reignited national debate about transparency, accountability, and the responsible management of public resources.
The auction, authorized by the Ministry of Justice and conducted by the Gambia Financial Intelligence Unit and the Assets Management and Recovery Corporation (AMRC), includes more than 100 properties, ranging from luxurious villas and commercial buildings to farmlands and vehicles, belonging to or associated with the former autocrat. While some hailed the process as a long-overdue step toward restitution, it also raised critical concerns about whether the process was conducted with the integrity and openness such a significant moment requires.
The Legacy of a Regime
Yahya Jammeh ruled The Gambia with an iron fist from 1994 to 2017. His regime was marked by widespread allegations of corruption, human rights abuses, enforced disappearances, and financial misappropriation. The Janneh Commission, set up by President Adama Barrow in 2018, revealed that Jammeh and his associates embezzled over GMD 1 billion (approximately USD 20 million), siphoning public funds into private bank accounts and overseas investments.The Commission’s findings led to a government decision to freeze and eventually confiscate the properties and financial assets of the former president. While the civil society and international partners welcomed this move as a necessary reckoning, the challenge remains in ensuring that the next steps, particularly the sale of these assets, are carried out in a manner that restores public trust and benefits the Gambian people.
The Need for Transparent Processes
The primary concern for many observers was the lack of clear information about how the auction was being conducted. Who was eligible to bid? How werethe assets being valued? What mechanisms were in place to prevent insiders or proxies of Jammeh’s former regime from reacquiring these properties through front companies? Transparency International and local watchdog organizations, including Gambia Participates, urged the government to publish detailed reports on the auction process, including bidder registries, asset valuation methods, and post-sale disbursement plans. Without such measures, the entire process risked replicating the very culture of opacity and mismanagement it sought to dismantle. Madi Jobarteh, a leading Gambian activist and commentator, recently noted, “The auction of Jammeh’s properties is not just about recovering funds. It’s a litmus test for this government’s commitment to accountability and the rule of law. Anything short of full transparency will undermine public confidence.”
Where Would the Money Go?
Another lingering question is how the revenue from these auctions would be used. The government had indicated that the proceeds would be directed toward national development, including investments in healthcare, education, and infrastructure. Yet, without a legally binding framework or oversight body to monitor disbursements, these promises would remain largely aspirational.
The lack of a trust fund or a transparent public expenditure plan could see the funds diverted into general government coffers, potentially subject to the same inefficiencies and political influences that had plagued the country’s financial systems for decades. Civil society groups have proposed the creation of a “Victims and Development Fund,” managed independently with clear guidelines to ensure the proceeds directly benefit those who suffered under Jammeh’s rule, as well as broader national development initiatives. Such a model would not only honor the pain endured by victims but also symbolize a tangible break from the past.
Legal and Ethical Implications
There are also legal questions surrounding the seizure and sale of assets, especially those whose ownership might be contested by third parties. Some former associates of Jammeh claimed that properties listed for auction had wrongfully been classified as his personal assets. If due diligence was not properly conducted, the government could find itself entangled in lawsuits that might delay the process or result in financial penalties.
Moreover, ethical considerations should not be overlooked. The sale of properties that were bought with embezzled public funds must be approached with a sense of restorative justice, not merely as a revenue-generating exercise. The central objective should be to ensure that these sales contribute meaningfully to rebuilding public services and national institutions.
A Turning Point
The auctioning of Yahya Jammeh’s properties presented The Gambia with a rare opportunity. It was a chance to demonstrate that justice could be served not only in courtrooms but also in public finance and governance. For a country still healing from the wounds of autocracy, every step toward accountability reinforces its democratic rebirth.
The international community, including the African Union (AU), the Economic Community of African States (ECOWAS), and donor agencies, should play a supportive role in monitoring the process and providing technical assistance to ensure compliance with international standards. More importantly, the Gambian people deserve full access to the facts about what was being sold, for how much, to whom, and where the money was going. Anything less would not only betray the legacy of those who fought for Gambia’s freedom but also cast doubt on the country’s effective and efficient journey toward true democracy.
Conclusion
As the auction process unfolded, the government must rise to the moment. It must show that The Gambia was no longer a country where state resources could be looted without consequence. Transparency and accountability are not optional, they are essential pillars of a new national ethos.
The world is watching, but more importantly, Gambians are watching. The government owes it to its citizens to get this right.
Polarizing and divisive both describe something that creates division or conflict, polarizing emphasizes the creation of distinct, opposing groups, while divisive simply highlights something that causes disagreement or conflict.
A conversation is a casual exchange of information and ideas, while a debate is a structured argument where participants aim to persuade each other of their viewpoint on a specific topic.
Management focuses on the efficient use of resources to achieve defined goals, while stewardship emphasizes the responsible and ethical oversight of resources, considering long-term implications and the well-being of stakeholders. Therefore, management is more about control, and stewardship is about care.
Iron fist typically refers to a harsh, dictatorial, or ruthless way of controlling people or situations. Iron grip can also describe strong control, but it’s often used in a more general sense, like a company holding a strong position in the market.
