By Sarjo Barrow, Esq.
On Friday, May 8, 2026, according to The Alkamba Times, police in the Kanifing region prevented members of Gambians Against Looted Assets (GALA) from holding a first-anniversary commemoration at the Youth Monument, citing a lack of registration despite the group having permission from the venue’s custodians—KMC officials. The incident led to multiple arrests, scuffles, and accusations of heavy-handed policing.
Moreover, The Alkamba Times reported that the Youth Monument is a secure, fenced public space that KMC officials say has hosted more than 20 paid events and been granted free access over 15 times, with many involving state institutions that did not need police permits. The space is owned by KMC, which had granted GALA permission to use it. The Alkamba Times further reports that Lord Mayor Talib Ahmed Bensouda expressed surprise and disappointment, noting that the sudden demand for additional police clearance for this event marked a departure from established practice.
Nonetheless, none of that mattered. According to The Alkamba Times, when Alieu Bah questioned the blockade, Police Superintendent Kuyateh reportedly responded: “You can’t enter. Are you registered? What I can say is your program cannot hold here today. That’s all I can say.”
Supposedly, the police disallowed the gathering due to lack of registration as an entity—that was the stated reason. It’s the only plausible explanation I can discern from the exchange—nothing about violence or a credible threat to public order. Registration, a term that doesn’t even appear in the Public Order Act. Reading further, Kerr Fatou reports that Salieu Taal, a former president of the Gambia Bar Association and legal expert who reviewed the relevant law in response to the arrests, plainly stated: registration is not a requirement to exercise the constitutional right to peaceful assembly. It never was.
Let’s Revisit the Law
The Public Order Act defines its key terms as follows:
“public procession” means a procession in a public place.
“meeting” means a gathering held to discuss matters of public interest or to express views on such matters.
“public meeting” includes any meeting in a public place where the public or any section of it is permitted to attend, whether by payment or free.
These terms are not interchangeable. The Act treats them differently, deliberately and consequentially.
Section 5(2) states:
“A person who wishes to form any public procession shall first apply for a license to the Inspector-General of Police or the Governor of the Region, or another authorized person, and if they are satisfied that the procession won’t breach the peace, they shall issue a license specifying the licensee’s name and conditions.”
Section 5(5) states:
“A public procession that—(a) takes place without a license under subsection (2), or (b) fails to obey any order issued under subsection (4), is considered an unlawful assembly. All participants in such a procession, or those involved in its organization, commit a crime, punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment.”
The entire licensing and penalty scheme centers solely on public processions—not gatherings, meetings, or commemorations. They are not the same.
The Act does not require a permit for a public meeting. None. The only provisions affecting public meetings are Sections 8 and 9, which prohibit carrying offensive weapons and threatening or insulting behaviors that might incite disorder—without requiring any permit, license, or police approval. Mr. Bah was correct when he questioned police. Someone had read the law.
Procession or Meeting: Which Was Westfield?
From videos, news reports, and community commentary, GALA was not marching through streets or moving in an organized column along a public route. According to The Alkamba Times, they gathered at the Youth Monument—a well-known public landmark long regarded as a hub for civic engagement, advocacy, and community expression—to mark their anniversary.
They came to sit, to commemorate, to assemble in a fixed, enclosed space permissions had been granted for. That’s a public meeting by any reasonable reading of the law. The Act explicitly defines a public meeting as any gathering in a public place where the public or a segment of it is allowed to attend. The Youth Monument, accessible with KMC permission, fits this definition perfectly. A public meeting requires no permit under the Act.
The only questions police are authorized to ask at a public meeting are: does anyone have a weapon, and is anyone threatening or insulting? Based on all accounts, the answer to both was no—until paramilitary forces arrived with tear gas and batons.
Police misapplied the law at Westfield. They used standards meant for different situations, applying them to a category of activity that explicitly requires no permit. This is not a gray area or a close call—it’s a clear misapplication of the law, something every officer learns in training or should have learned.
If It Was a Procession, Police Had to Observe First
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that GALA’s approach to the Youth Monument was a public procession, arresting members already gathered cannot be justified.
Sections 8 and 9, which regulate conduct at public meetings, only permit arrests if certain conditions are met—such as possession of offensive weapons or threatening behavior with intent to provoke disorder. Neither allows preemptive detention based on suspicion.
Again, The Alkamba Times reports that witnesses described youths emphasizing their peaceful intentions, with one saying: “We are here to commemorate our one year. We don’t want any trouble, nothing else.” Yet police formed a line at the gate before the event could even start. That’s not enforcement—that’s prior restraint.
The Definitional Problem No Court Has Addressed
The Westfield incident reveals an unresolved issue at the core of the law. The Act does not specify a minimum number of people for a procession, nor does it require political motives or demands. It simply states that a procession is any march in a public place.
If police interpret the law broadly, anyone walking to a naming ceremony, attending a football match in a group, or going to a funeral could be considered a criminal. Clearly, that cannot be the law—at best, it’s absurd.
Since no court has clarified this, it remains a tool for suppression when authorities choose to misuse it. This explains inconsistent enforcement, bafflement among officials, and why lawyer Taal felt compelled to revisit the law.
The law contains no requirement for intent to protest or political demand. Yet the entire basis for requiring prior police approval is that organized public pressure is inherently different from other gatherings. Removing that reasoning renders the licensing requirement baseless.
GALA announced their purpose—commemoration—well in advance. That purpose is fundamentally different from a march meant to pressure the government. If the law demands that a procession involve an intent to make a political or civic demand, then GALA’s gathering fits outside its scope. No permit needed. No offense committed. In fact, the law’s historical context—dating back to before independence—supports this reading.
Why the Supreme Court Should Revisit or Clarify Darboe
The 2017 Supreme Court ruling in Darboe v. IGP upheld the constitutionality of Section 5. While I respect that decision, I believe it was mistaken—something I detailed in a separate analysis in The Alkamba Times—and subsequent jurisprudence confirms why.
The Court rightly recognized that restrictions on peaceful assembly must be reasonable, necessary, and purpose-driven. However, it then relied solely on the stated public order purpose, ignoring whether the licensing scheme was the least restrictive option or whether police discretion was well constrained.
Six months later, the Court in Gambia Press Union v. Attorney General emphasized restrictions must be proportionate and narrowly tailored, and Emil Touray v. Attorney General reaffirmed that all constitutional criteria must be satisfied together. The Darboe ruling only satisfied one.
Even if the Court reaffirms Section 5’s constitutionality—a position I respectfully contest—it must clarify the law’s definition of a public procession. Citizens deserve a clear legal standard before they participate in public gatherings.
Civil society and legal groups should consider requesting a constitutional ruling on this point alone. The goal isn’t wholesale invalidation but ensuring citizens understand whether their activity requires permission—an essential safeguard of the rule of law.
The 1961 Public Order Act was not designed for a constitutional democracy. Senior Counsel Salieu Taal notes that The Gambia needs peace and order, built on law—not fear. The Westfield events were not consistent with that principle—applying a colonial-era statute without a solid legal basis against citizens whose only fault was showing up.
Facts regarding the GALA arrests are drawn from reporting by Alieu Ceesay and Ebrima Mbaye for The Alkamba Times, published May 9, 2026. The public statement by Salieu Taal was published on Kerr Fatou.
