By Sarjo Barrow, Esq.
The nomination period is perhaps the most delicate stage of any election. For a country still finding its feet after years of dictatorship, how public institutions treat people seeking office matters. The Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) must scrutinize documents, verify qualifications and ensure every candidate meets the constitutional requirements, all under public scrutiny and in a tense political climate. The Commission deserves support. But how it does its work matters almost as much as the outcome.
On November 6, IEC Chairman Joseph Colley received the nomination of NDP leader Kebba Madi Bojang. According to The Gambia Journal, he remarked: “You are 51 years old, and you sat your WASSCE last year? We will cross-check that with WAEC.” Mr. Bojang replied: “No problem, sir!”
Mr. Bojang deserves credit for his restraint. He could have taken offense at a remark that, made publicly, risked casting doubt on his qualifications. Instead, he responded calmly.
The Chairman is entitled to verify every qualification; that is his responsibility. Section 62(1)(d) of the Constitution requires a presidential candidate to have “completed senior secondary school education,” and section 38(2) of the Elections Act requires every qualification to be satisfied “before the acceptance of his or her nomination papers.” Checking results with WAEC is within the IEC’s mandate. Drawing public attention to the candidate’s age is another matter.
The Constitution sets a minimum age of thirty for the presidency. It sets no deadline for completing one’s education. A man who returns to the classroom in midlife and sits a national examination deserves encouragement, not a raised eyebrow on a public podium. Would the same remark have been made to a candidate who finished at seventeen? If not, why make it to one who finished at fifty?
Verification does not require humiliation. Every candidate’s certificates should be checked the same way, against the records, without public commentary.
The same principle applies to how candidates are addressed. A video now in circulation shows the Commission telling the former Kanifing Mayor that it will address him as “Mr. Bensouda.” If the IEC deals with persons rather than titles, that is defensible, but only if applied to all. Will the same apply to the incumbent when he files? To a former Vice President or former ministers seeking office? If not, courtesy extends the same consideration to the former Mayor’s title, unless he waives it. Neutrality is measured by consistency.
Equal treatment also extends to how the IEC applies the law. In a video commentary, one nominee urged the IEC to enforce the education requirement against candidates who completed O Levels but not A Levels, arguing that “completed” means passing the relevant subjects. I respectfully disagree.
Section 62(1)(d) does not mention the WASSCE, A Levels or any examination, and it does not say “passed.” It says “completed.” As the U.S. Supreme Court has put it, “When a term goes undefined in a statute, we give the term its ordinary meaning.” Merriam-Webster defines “complete” as “to bring to an end” and “to make whole.” A student who finished the final year of secondary school completed it.
History confirms this. The Constitution was approved by referendum in 1996 and came into force in January 1997. According to WAEC, the WASSCE replaced the GCE Ordinary and Advanced Level examinations, and was first conducted in The Gambia in 1998. When the Constitution was adopted, secondary school ended with O Levels; A Levels were an optional further stage. Requiring A Levels now would exclude almost every Gambian of that generation who completed secondary school.
The substance points the same way. The WASSCE replaced both O and A Levels, yet today’s graduates sit no A Level. Why hold the earlier generation to a higher standard? As our Supreme Court said in Halifa Sallah v. Clerk of the National Assembly (2005), the nature of a thing is “determined not by its name alone but by … what it actually does.” O Levels marked the completion of secondary school under the system then in place.
Practice reflects the same understanding. The IEC accepted Yahya Jammeh’s nominations in 2001, 2006, 2011 and 2016, although published accounts show his formal education ended with O Levels. And when the National Assembly amended section 62 in 2017 to remove the age limit, it left the education clause untouched.
In any event, as I argued in an earlier piece, even if the critics’ reading were stronger, the question belongs to the Supreme Court, not the IEC. Section 127(1)(a) gives that Court exclusive original jurisdiction over the interpretation of the Constitution.
Nomination day is no ordinary administrative exercise. Every exchange becomes part of the public record, and a candidate embarrassed on camera cannot easily undo the impression, even if the matter is clarified the next morning.
The IEC has an important week ahead. The country will be best served if it checks everything and comments on nothing: verify every certificate, and belittle no one.
Education has no age limit. Neither should courtesy.
* * *
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not represent those of his employer or the government.
