By Sarjo Barrow, Esq.
“Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed—and no republic can survive.” President John F. Kennedy
In January 2017, ECOMIG entered The Gambia under Operation Restore Democracy, with political support from UN Security Council Resolution 2337, to help transfer power after President Jammeh lost the election. The transition was peaceful. Nine years and ten rotations later—including the arrival of 618 Senegalese soldiers this September—a deployment created for one election has become an ongoing “stabilization” mission (The Standard).
However, Resolution 2337 called for political solutions first and did not authorize armed intervention. The mission relied on President Barrow’s consent after he was sworn in at the Gambian embassy in Dakar. Whether an invitation from exile had the right authority is a question for another day.
This article does not dispute ECOMIG’s role in protecting the 2016 election result and the will of Gambian voters. Its focus is narrower: whether ECOMIG stays or goes, its presence must rest on clear constitutional and legal authority. Nothing more.
This brings us to the current situation.
On September 10, The Point reported that Vice President Muhammed B.S. Jallow told the National Assembly that ECOMIG has no set departure date. ECOWAS reviews the mission each year and decides when it will end. When a lawmaker compared The Gambia’s dependence on foreign troops to its dependence on foreign electricity, the government rejected the comparison.
The Vice President’s comment was not a one-time statement. It shows a view the government has held before. Five years earlier, in a 2021 State of Affairs interview on QTV, President Adama Barrow was asked if the people’s representatives should have a say in extending ECOMIG. He answered directly: the extension, he said, “is about Executive decision, this is not about National Assembly” (sic). He also said that the country’s security was his job as Commander-in-Chief, not the Assembly’s (Askanwi / FactCheckGambia).
Two officials, five years apart, gave our elected representatives the same message: this is not your decision to make. Taken together, these statements present a clear constitutional question: can the Executive extend a long-term foreign military deployment without the National Assembly’s approval? As a national security law enthusiast, I could not resist examining that position and what it means for The Gambia’s national security and separation of powers.
The issue is not simply what happens inside military barracks. It is whether a long-term foreign military presence can continue without the National Assembly’s constitutional oversight—and whether the Assembly, out of deference or unfamiliarity with the law, is allowing that to happen.
Writing in Foreign Affairs about the United States, General CQ Brown warned that republics weaken when citizens repeatedly turn to the military to solve civilian problems. The Gambia faces a different—and perhaps more complex—risk: dependence on a foreign force under foreign command, even though the Constitution places military power under civilian control.
The lawmaker’s comparison to electricity made an important point. If you cannot turn a supply on or off yourself, you do not fully control it. When the presidency hands over part of the country’s security to a foreign force, that dependence affects the heart of the state.
The President has substantial authority over foreign affairs, but that authority is not unlimited. Section 7 provides that regional agreements do not become domestic law merely because neighboring states sign them. Section 79 requires National Assembly approval of treaties and authorization before war or peace, while Section 4 establishes the Constitution as the supreme law.
The constitutional text, therefore, does not readily support keeping a foreign military force in The Gambia indefinitely without legislative approval. Lawmakers themselves appear to disagree. One member of the Defence and Security Committee has said ECOMIG extensions require approval under Section 79, while another has characterized ECOMIG as solely an ECOWAS matter (Askanwi).
No court has answered this question yet. But after almost ten years, letting such a major arrangement continue without clear approval from lawmakers is a constitutional issue The Gambia can no longer ignore or avoid naming.
The government’s fallback arguments do not answer this issue. Resolution 2337 supported bringing back constitutional order but called for political solutions first; it did not allow an unlimited foreign deployment. If ECOMIG is based on an earlier ECOWAS protocol, that treaty would still need Assembly approval under Section 79.
Silence is not consent. If Parliament has never discussed or voted on an arrangement, it has not truly used the constitutional power given to it. This argument does not place Gambian soldiers outside civilian control; they must always remain under it. Nor does it suggest that armed men may seize the State House to “save” the country or defend its sovereignty. Soldiers who take power by force have no legal authority.
This principle works both ways. Real power needs legal approval, even when the government asks a foreign military force to stay for a long time. Sovereignty and stability do not mean the Constitution can be set aside whenever the Executive wants.
The Information Minister argues that ECOMIG does not weaken sovereignty, that Gambian forces remain “Gambian-led, Gambian-commanded,” and that Germany and Japan also host foreign troops (Voice Gambia). But those comparisons do not resolve the legal question: in those countries, foreign deployments rest on agreements approved through constitutional and legislative processes.
So, the real issue is not just who is in charge at a checkpoint on any given day. It is about who gave legal approval for the foreign deployment, under which law, and with what constitutional limits. That is why the National Assembly matters.
The Vice President describes the arrangement as open-ended. In a republic, however, “open-ended” should describe a debate, not a military deployment. The National Assembly should bring ECOMIG’s mandate to the floor, debate it publicly, approve or reject it, define its terms, and review it regularly.
Gambian soldiers must remain under civilian authority, and so must every foreign soldier invited to stay. Consent is not silence. After nine years, Parliament owes the people a clear answer.
