A prominent Gambian-born legal scholar and former immigration lawyer who practiced at the intersection of human rights and national security has issued a detailed public statement urging The Gambia’s National Assembly to amend the proposed Gambia Immigration Bill, 2026, before it becomes law.
Sarjo Barrow, Esq., now recognized as one of the leading voices on immigration policy among diaspora legal experts in the United States, argues that while the bill represents a necessary modernization of the country’s outdated 1965 immigration statute, it contains critical gaps that could undermine both public safety and fundamental liberties.
In a statement released on Friday, Barrow praised the bill’s intent but warned that without targeted fixes, it risks creating a system that is neither securely protective nor constitutionally sound. “Protecting a nation and protecting rights are not opposing goals,” he wrote. “A well-written immigration law does both. A poorly written one does neither.”
The Gambia Immigration Bill, 2026, is the first comprehensive overhaul of the country’s immigration framework since independence. It seeks to update rules on entry, residence, border management, and the fight against migrant smuggling amid growing regional and global pressures. High-profile criminal cases involving foreign-born or undocumented suspects have intensified public debate, mirroring immigration controversies playing out from South Africa to Europe and the United States.
His statement highlights several specific shortcomings in the current draft. The bill acknowledges the need to protect individuals fleeing persecution, yet it fails to outline a clear, workable asylum process for immigration officers to follow when someone claims they face death or torture upon return. “It gives immigration officers no clear process to follow when someone says, ‘I will be killed if you send me back,'” Barrow noted.
The legislation also employs overlapping and sometimes vague exclusion categories without precise legal connections, potentially complicating enforcement and judicial review. On detention, the bill permits holding individuals without firm time limits or a guaranteed judicial hearing, raising due process concerns. It similarly lacks explicit provisions guaranteeing the right to judicial review of detention or removal decisions—safeguards considered essential in modern legal systems.
Particularly concerning to Barrow is the absence of clear bars on refugee protection for individuals who have committed serious international crimes, atrocities, or financed terrorism. “We can bar human-rights abusers from asylum while honoring our Constitution and the treaties we have signed,” he emphasized.
Despite these criticisms, Barrow described the bill as “a genuine step forward” and credited its drafters for tackling a complex issue. His recommendations focus on practical, balanced reforms. He advocates for mandatory time limits on detention coupled with prompt judicial hearings, expedited removal procedures for those convicted of grave offenses such as murder, rape, kidnapping, or terrorism, and robust screening mechanisms to identify genuine protection claims while swiftly turning back those without valid documents or credible fears of return.
“Firmness and fairness are not a trade-off; each makes the other stronger,” Barrow stated. He repeatedly stressed that unchecked executive power in immigration matters does not enhance security but instead breeds errors, erodes public confidence, and invites legal challenges. “Unchecked power is not strength. Genuine security comes from authority that is clear, bounded, and reviewable.”
The scholar has prepared a detailed, clause-by-clause set of proposed amendments and intends to submit them directly to members of The Gambia’s National Assembly. However, he insists that broad public and institutional input is essential. He called on the Gambia Bar Association, civil society groups, refugee advocates, employers, faith leaders, journalists, and ordinary citizens to review the gazetted bill and communicate their concerns to lawmakers.
“You do not need to be a lawyer,” Barrow said. “You need only care how power over liberty is exercised in your name.” Key questions he urged Gambians to ask include: Where exactly is the asylum process defined? What are the limits on administrative detention? Can affected individuals access the courts? Who is protected under the law, and who might be left vulnerable?
Barrow framed his intervention as consistent with the functioning of a constitutional democracy. “Laws are stronger, not weaker, when they are tested in the open before they take effect,” he wrote. “The National Assembly cannot weigh views it never hears. We will all live under this law—so we should all help shape it, and make it one that keeps The Gambia both safe and free.”
The statement arrives at a sensitive time for Gambian politics and society. Immigration has become a kitchen-table issue as the country grapples with its role as both a source and transit point for migration flows toward Europe. Recent violent incidents attributed to non-citizens have fueled calls for tighter controls, while human rights organizations caution against measures that could violate international obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the UN Convention Against Torture.
