In a strongly worded legal opinion released following the UNITE movement’s national congress on May 16, 2026, prominent US-based Gambian legal scholar Sarjo Barrow, Esq., has thrown his support behind the gathering while sharply criticizing the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) for what he describes as misplaced concerns over unregistered political movements.
Barrow argues that the IEC Chairperson, Mr. Joe Colley’s April 23 warning—that holding a congress before official registration constitutes unlawful political activity—misunderstands both the Gambian Constitution and the Elections Act. While acknowledging the Commission’s duty to safeguard the electoral process, Barrow insists the IEC is focusing on the wrong issue.
“The UNITE movement held its congress on May 16, and that congress was not only lawful but legally necessary,” Barrow wrote. “Denying its registration on that basis would be penalizing a movement for following the law to the letter.”
Citing Article 25 of the 1997 Constitution, Barrow emphasizes that every Gambian citizen enjoys the fundamental right to freedom of association, including the right to form and join political parties. This right, he notes, exists from the moment citizens decide to organize and does not depend on prior approval from the IEC.
“Assembling to elect leaders and adopt a constitution is a constitutionally protected act, period,” he stated.
Barrow further points to specific provisions in the Elections Act 2025 to demonstrate that pre-registration congresses are not only permitted but implicitly required. Section 106(2)(c) demands that a registration application include the names and addresses of actual executive members—not provisional ones. Without an internal democratic process such as a congress, it would be impossible to produce legitimately elected leaders, he argues.
Similarly, Section 106(1)(f) requires the IEC to verify that a party’s constitution mandates biennial congresses. This presupposes that the party already possesses a fully drafted and adopted constitution approved by its members—another process that naturally occurs at a founding congress.
“An aspiring party has two options,” Barrow explains. “It can hold a congress, elect leaders, adopt its constitution, and submit a complete application—or file with unelected interim leaders and an unapproved constitution, directly contradicting the requirement that the party’s internal organization conforms to democratic principles.”
Barrow acknowledges that the IEC has legitimate concerns but insists they lie elsewhere. He highlights scenarios where unregistered movements cross the line into prohibited activity: publicly campaigning for the presidency under a pending party banner, using unregistered symbols and emblems, or presenting a leader as a party candidate while running as an independent.
Such actions, he warns, violate Section 104 of the Elections Act, which reserves the right to sponsor candidates exclusively for registered political parties. Campaigning under an unregistered banner misleads voters and could breach rules on candidate symbols (Section 49), campaign material identification (Section 86), and voter confusion (Section 107).
“While the constitutional right to associate, organize, and advocate is broad and protected, Article 25 does not authorize a movement to conduct an election campaign as a phantom party,” Barrow asserts. “At that point, the movement is no longer exercising freedom of association. It is engaging in deception within the electoral process, and that is exactly what the IEC should monitor.”
The legal scholar’s intervention comes amid heightened political activity in The Gambia as various movements position themselves ahead of future elections. The UNITE congress, which drew significant attendance and media coverage, elected leadership and adopted foundational documents, positioning the group to apply for registration formally.
