By Sarjo Barrow, Esq.
This week, the Fatu Network, quoting The Standard, reported that the United Democratic Party warned that peaceful street protests could start at any time because of a gap of 28,932 records in this year’s supplementary voter registration. As a legal commentator, I write because every Gambian voter, no matter their politics, deserves a voter register they can trust. In this case, the law already provides most of what is needed. It gives UDP what it is asking for and offers a quicker solution than protesting.
The dispute centers on the Independent Electoral Commission’s announcement that 212,095 people registered during this year’s supplementary exercise. UDP says the data it received contains only 183,163 records, a difference of 28,932. The Commission has explained that 212,095 was a raw field-data figure that included reprinted and replacement cards, and that it later removed 14,334 duplicate registrations. On October 6, Vice Chairman Cherno Jallow told The Standard that the Commission had received two letters from UDP and should have replied, but had been “very busy.”
Both sides make valid points. UDP is right that a gap this large requires a written reconciliation, not merely a comment at a stakeholders’ forum. The Commission is also right that raw field data is not the same as a cleaned register. Yet the Commission has not provided that reconciliation in writing, and UDP has not pursued the legal remedy available to obtain the final register.
The law is unambiguous. Section 36(2)(b) of the Elections Act, 2025 states that the Commission “shall . . . provide master register and master supplementary register to all political parties in soft copies.” Under section 34(3), the register becomes final once the Revising Court magistrates sign the voter list and the deletion list. Providing the final register is therefore not a favor the Commission may grant or withhold; it is a statutory duty. Because finalization includes both the voter list and the deletion list, parties should be able to see not only who remains on the register but also who was removed. Where the Act is silent, section 143 requires the Commission to act “in keeping with the standards and rules of natural justice and fairness.” Leaving two formal letters unanswered for weeks is difficult to reconcile with that standard.
That shared position should lower the temperature. Mr. Jallow said that once the magistrates sign the final register—if they have not already—the Commission will share it “with political parties as required by the law.” The dispute is therefore no longer about whether the register must be disclosed, but when the Commission will finalize and deliver it.
UDP therefore has a clear three-step path. First, it should send the Commission a short letter requesting the expected signing and delivery dates and confirmation of the number of new voters. Second, it can use the Access to Information Act, 2021 to request information not covered by the Elections Act, including how it identified duplicate registrations. Third, if the Commission does not deliver the register promptly after it is signed, UDP can urgently ask the High Court for an order of mandamus compelling delivery. The application should seek only the register, not a delay of the election.
Going to court is the stronger option for a simple reason: a court order binds the Commission, while a protest can only pressure it. Section 33 of the Act provides that, except in criminal proceedings, a voter list may be challenged only in a Revising Court, with appeals going to the High Court. A party that prevails in court can also point to that judgment when addressing voters, election observers, and foreign partners.
Peaceful assembly is a constitutional right, and I fully support it; marching is not unpatriotic. But the right must be exercised within the law, including rules governing time, place, and manner. During the campaign period—reportedly November 10 through December 3—section 87 of the Elections Act requires a party to give the Commission at least three days’ written notice before a demonstration, and the Commission must respond within 48 hours. Outside that period, the ordinary police-permit rules apply. The Supreme Court has held that the Public Order Act remains in force, regardless of public disagreement with it.
More importantly, protesting now would be premature. UDP has not yet sought a court order beyond the ordinary Revising Court process for objections to individual registrations, and the Commission has said it will share the register. If the register is not delivered—or if the Commission ignores a court order compelling delivery—a lawful, permitted, and peaceful protest would then be a fair response. Many Gambians with no party affiliation might join such an effort. A protest after an ignored court order could speak for the whole country; a protest before court action risks appearing to speak for only one party.
Each side now has a clear duty. The Commission should answer UDP in writing, announce a delivery date, and keep it. UDP should pursue legal remedy before calling supporters into the streets. With the election set for December 5, there is no time to waste. Gambians deserve a register that both winners and losers can trust—and the law already provides the path: disclosure first, court enforcement if necessary, and peaceful protest only if lawful orders fail.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not represent those of the author’s employer or of any department or agency.
