By Dave Manneh – Research Lead, Securing Futures: Land Rights Action Collaborative
Background to This Analysis
This opinion piece is a response to a segment on “Coffee Time with Peter Gomez,” broadcast on Wednesday, 29 April 2025. The segment featured Mustapha Taf Njie in which he answered a question on the controversial land acquisitions in Brufut and Yundum during the Yahya Jammeh regime.
Securing Futures: Land Rights Action Collaborative submitted several questions that Mr Gomez posed to Taf. This was one of those questions. Mr Gomez asked Njie: “Your company developed Brufut Gardens and AU Villas on land the Manneh and Sanneh clans formerly held. What compensation did you provide to the community, and what percentage of the developments’ current market value does this represent?”
Mr Njie defended the acquisition process, claiming that he paid proper compensation through “government-stipulated methods” and suggesting the development positively affected the national housing sector.
Securing Futures subsequently provided an audio rejoinder challenging these claims, reminding Njie of the compensation he attempted to force on the Manneh clan for 32 hectares of land: GMD250,000 (less than $6,000). That pittance was a fraction of the market value.
The case represents one instance in a broader pattern of asset mismanagement and undervalued transfers that characterised the Jammeh era and has continued after his departure.
Recent investigative reporting by “The Republic” revealed that officials sold state assets worth hundreds of millions at fractions of their market value, with the State recovering only $23.7 million from assets worth at least $362 million.
Facing the Past: Accountability, Not Evasion
Taf’s response reveals not only a lack of transparency regarding compensation but also attempts to evade accountability for actions he took under Jammeh’s dictatorship. Rather than addressing the Brufut community’s dispossession, Njie resorts to vague references to “government-stipulated methods” while avoiding acknowledgement of the disparity between compensation and market value.
These evasions reflect a broader pattern of opacity that hampers our The Gambian’s recovery. The case of Jammeh’s seized assets demonstrates how officials can subvert transparency. In the case of the seized assets, they replaced open auctions with closed bids, kept valuation reports unpublished, and withheld purchasing records despite requests from journalists, activists, and lawmakers. When Justice Amina Saho-Ceesay ruled against premature disposal of these assets, calling it a “travesty” of justice, the then Minister of Justice: Abubakarr Tambadou circumvented her decision through procedural manipulation. Justice Ebrima Jaiteh -later acknowledged this was an “abuse of process.”
Njie further attempts to deflect criticism through textbook whataboutism. He referenced “undeveloped land” opposite his Brufut development and an alleged post-Jammeh inquiry supposedly vindicating him. He also questioned the motives of those intent on holding him to account. This diverts attention from the central issue: the violation of the constitutional rights of members of the Manneh clan.
The fact remains that the state dispossessed the clan of their ancestral land, attempted to force a paltry compensation upon them (which they rejected), and yet reportedly compensated Njie-for reasons Njie never clarified or elaborated on.
Constitutional Violations and Wealth Accumulation Under Dictatorship
The dispossession of clan lands across Kombo violates Article 22 of the Gambian Constitution, which protects property rights and mandates fair compensation for compulsory acquisition. Jammeh’s “gifting” of ancestral lands to a single businessperson exemplifies how his regime undermined constitutional protections, contravening both domestic law and fundamental human rights standards.
Njie’s case further exemplifies a pattern where select individuals accumulated extraordinary wealth through preferential access to state resources. Just as Gambia has initiated processes to address Jammeh’s ill-gotten assets through the Janneh Commission, similar accountability must extend to those who benefited from his unconstitutional actions. The dispossession of lands belonging to hundreds to enrich a single well-connected individual represents precisely the injustice our democratic transition promised to remedy.
This pattern of severely undervalued compensation was standard practice under Jammeh and sadly continues under Barrow. In a similar case, “The Republic’s” investigations documented how someone resold a Fajara property worth approximately D8.5 million to its original owner for merely D3.15 million-just D150,000 more than Jammeh paid 15 years earlier.
The Facts: Coercion, Rejection, and Legal Challenge
Njie’s so-called compensation bypassed normal channels. Instead, he and the Jammeh regime entrusted this to the late Darba Marenah – then Director General of the National Intelligence Agency, and Baba Jobe, then Secretary to Jammeh respectively – both of whom the regime later murdered. The intimidation was unmistakable, and the elders’ refusal to accept the cash constituted an act of dignity and protest.
Undeterred, the Manneh clan initiated civil suit 44/03 (Brufut Manneh clan versus Taf Holdings Ltd), directly contradicting any implication that they accepted compensation. They expressly wished not to part with their ancestral land. This legal challenge highlighted that the transaction lacked mutual agreement and therefore stands neither legally nor ethically justified.
Beyond Zero-Sum Development
Too often in The Gambia, we face false choices: development or tradition, investment or rights, progress or justice. The Brufut case reveals the poverty of this thinking. Genuine development creates win-win scenarios where investors prosper while communities maintain dignity and receive fair value. When compensation amounts to GMD250,000 for land worth $12-15 millions, the transaction becomes extractive rather than developmental.
True national progress requires development models that enhance community agency. We cannot build sustainable prosperity on foundations of community resentment and unresolved grievances.
Post-Jammeh Accountability: Addressing the Full Spectrum
The post-Jammeh era demands a comprehensive approach to accountability that addresses not only the former dictator’s direct actions but also holds accountable those who profited from his unconstitutional regime. The case of Njie and others who accumulated wealth through preferential land allocations and dispossessions challenges us to consider how transitional justice should address these secondary beneficiaries.
Just as we pursue recovery of Jammeh’s assets, we must establish mechanisms to review and potentially reverse land acquisitions that occurred through constitutional violations. This aims to restore communal rights and establish precedents that deter future abuses.
Healing Forward: Practical Steps
How might The Gambia move forward from such disputes towards a more harmonious Gambia?
First, we must establish transparent, participatory processes for development planning that recognise both legal and customary rights.
Second, communities must have meaningful input before, not after, development decisions affect their lands. When government officials communicate major decisions through security agencies rather than proper channels, as happened in Brufut, public trust erodes.
Third, the state should ensure fair compensation standards when land acquisition is genuinely necessary for public good. This requires independent valuation by certified professionals with results made public.
Fourth, we need accessible dispute resolution mechanisms that balance power differentials between developers and communities, ensuring that financial resources do not determine justice outcomes.
Fifth, our transitional justice mechanisms must extend beyond Jammeh himself to address the network of beneficiaries who profited from constitutional violations. This includes establishing an independent commission to review land acquisitions that occurred during the dictatorship.
Finally, our country must establish robust safeguards against conflicts of interest. When the same individuals act as “judge and jury” in transactions – as former Finance Minister Amadou Sanneh criticised regarding asset sales – the public interest suffers.
A Moment for National Reflection
The Brufut dispute offers Gambians a moment for national reflection. Do we want development that empowers communities or merely enriches connected individuals? Do we want a society where security forces deliver “compensation” or one where communities participate as equals in development planning? Do we intend to hold accountable only Jammeh himself, or also those who built fortunes through his unconstitutional actions?
The elders who refused to accept compensation demonstrated dignity that commands our respect. Their stance challenges us to create a nation where such courage becomes unnecessary-where development enhances rather than dismisses community rights.
The path to harmony lies not in suppressing difficult conversations but in having them openly, with mutual respect and commitment to equitable outcomes. Only then can we build developments on foundations solid enough to truly last.
Conclusion
The Brufut issue offers a mirror for the New Gambia. It challenges us to choose: will we build a society where justice prevails, or allow legacies of dispossession and impunity to persist?
The revelations by “The Republic” that $362 million in seized assets yielded only $23.7 million in recovery demonstrate how opacity and insider dealing cost our country dearly. When officials conduct deals through closed bids, stonewall inquiries, and sideline court-appointed receivers, these actions threaten our democratic transition.
The Gambia’s motto, “Progress, Peace, and Prosperity,” remains the right aspiration. These cases remind us that these elements must advance together, for prosperity without justice brings neither progress nor peace. When victims of human rights violations await reparations while connected individuals retain lands acquired through constitutional violations, we merely exchange one form of injustice for another.
Let it be clear: the ownership of these lands predates the Anglo-French Convention of 1889 by centuries. These lands are not the nation-state’s to gift away. And just as we seek accountability from Jammeh himself, we must also address the enduring consequences of his unconstitutional “gifts” to those who profited from his regime.
