Sarjo Barrow, a Gambian-born and US-based legal scholar, has urged The Gambia to reassess its Drug Control Act following public outcry over perceived inconsistencies in drug-related sentencing.
In a detailed opinion piece, Barrow highlights stark differences between recent cases involving cannabis and ecstasy, arguing that the law’s framework—not judicial bias—drives these outcomes and warrants reform for greater fairness and proportionality.
The catalyst for Barrow’s commentary is the recent conviction of a man sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment for trafficking three kilograms of cannabis. Under the Drug Control Act, possession exceeding three kilograms triggers an automatic presumption of trafficking, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut it. Failure to do so results in a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years, which the court must impose without discretion for mitigating factors or public sentiment.
This contrasts sharply with an earlier case where an individual faced charges for approximately 47,000 ecstasy (MDMA) pills yet received only a fine of D500,000 and no prison time. Barrow notes that ecstasy, classified as a controlled rather than prohibited drug, lacks the same presumptive trafficking threshold. Prosecutors retain discretion to charge simple possession even with large quantities, allowing courts flexibility to opt for fines over incarceration.
“Many Gambians observe a notable difference… these concerns are understandable,” Barrow writes. However, he emphasizes that the disparity stems from the Act’s legislative design rather than inconsistent judicial application. The judiciary, he stresses, is “bound to apply the law as written” and cannot deviate based on circumstances or opinion.
Barrow points to prosecutorial discretion as a key vulnerability. Charging possession instead of trafficking in high-volume ecstasy cases risks undermining the law’s intent and eroding public trust in the justice system. To address this, he advocates for centralized oversight of drug prosecutions, potentially under the State Law Office, to promote standardized handling, accountability, and consistency given the severe consequences—including mandatory sentences, asset forfeiture, and loss of liberty.
Reform, Barrow argues, need not await full parliamentary overhaul. The Minister has authority under the existing Act to amend drug schedules, enabling the reclassification of substances, aligning penalties with modern harm assessments, and resolving inconsistencies. Such executive action could enhance equity without new legislation.
He critiques the Act’s rigid binary distinction between “prohibited” and “controlled” drugs, which can yield results misaligned with contemporary science and global trends. Cannabis faces harsher treatment than some substances posing greater health risks, even as other nations pursue decriminalization or legalization. Barrow draws parallels to US disparities in crack versus powder cocaine sentencing, underscoring the need for evidence-based policies that advance fairness and social justice.
Ultimately, Barrow redirects public frustration from the judiciary to lawmakers and policymakers. When sentences appear disproportionate, the remedy lies in legislative or executive reform, not criticism of courts fulfilling their duty.
“Thoughtful reform that balances law, fairness, and public confidence” is essential, he concludes, while respecting existing legal processes.
Barrow, who serves with the US Department of Justice, clarifies that his views are personal and do not represent those of his employer or the United States government.
The commentary arrives amid ongoing debates in The Gambia over drug enforcement, with recent operations by the Drug Law Enforcement Agency seizing significant quantities of cannabis, ecstasy, and other substances. Public discourse continues to question proportionality in penalties as authorities grapple with evolving drug challenges.
