President Adama Barrow has responded to concerns raised by UNITE over the government’s White Paper on the Kanifing Municipal Council Commission of Inquiry, defending its publication timing and declining to comment further on an adverse finding against Mayor Talib Ahmed Bensouda while the matter is before the Court of Appeal.
In a letter dated 5 November and addressed to UNITE Secretary General Dembo B. Kanteh, the President acknowledged receipt of the organization’s 2 November correspondence, which reached State House the following day. The response systematically addresses ten points raised by UNITE.
On timing, the letter states that the Commission submitted its report to the President on 11 May 2026. Section 203(a) of the Constitution required publication of the report, together with the President’s comments and a statement of any action taken, within six months—by 11 November 2026. The Government White Paper and the Commission’s Report were published as a supplement to The Gambia Gazette No. 58 of 29 October 2026 (G.N. No. 211/2026). The letter maintains that publication occurred within the constitutional period and that the government could not lawfully defer it because of the nomination program of any intending candidate, including the President himself.
Regarding availability, the response notes that publication in the Gazette constitutes official publication under section 203(a). Electronic copies in circulation are of that publication, while certified copies may be obtained from the Gambia Printing and Publishing Corporation. Requests for Commission records should be directed to the Attorney General and Minister of Justice and will be handled in accordance with the law.
A central element of the response concerns the adverse finding against Mr Bensouda. On 24 June 2026, he filed a Notice of Appeal in the Court of Appeal under section 204 of the Constitution (Talib Ahmed Bensouda v Attorney General, Civil Appeal No. GCA 063/2026) against the finding communicated to him on 12 May 2026. The appeal seeks to set the finding aside, citing, among other grounds, that the Commission did not specify the expenditure concerned, set out the legal basis, or give reasons as required by section 204(1). The letter states that, under section 204(2) and as confirmed by the Supreme Court in Attorney General v M.A. Kharafi & Sons Ltd (2021), the Report is to be treated for the appeal as if it were a High Court judgment.
Consequently, “it would be improper for His Excellency to comment further on them, or to ‘correct’ or ‘clarify’ the record concerning them, while the appeal is pending.”
On the nature of the White Paper, the government agrees that it is neither a court judgment nor a Commission finding. Citing Supreme Court decisions in Feryale Ghanem v Attorney General and the Kharafi case, the letter describes a Commission of Inquiry as a fact-finding body whose findings and recommendations are subject to government approval. The White Paper is the instrument through which the government states its position, as required by section 203(a).
The passage referred to by UNITE appears under the heading “Government Position” and does not purport to determine any person’s qualification under section 62 of the Constitution.
The government stands by its comments and sees no basis to withdraw or amend them. The duty under section 203(a) is mandatory and is not suspended by an appeal under section 204. The White Paper states the government’s position on the Report as submitted; it does not determine the appeal and remains subject to its outcome.
Regarding a passage from M.A. Kharafi & Sons Ltd v Attorney General (Court of Appeal, 1 June 2020) cited by UNITE, the letter notes that the Supreme Court subsequently set the ruling aside, holding that issues raised by the Court of Appeal of its own motion—including the legal status of a Government White Paper—were not relevant to the stay application before it and declining to determine them.
On eligibility, the response states that section 62 of the Constitution governs qualification for election as President and that the Independent Electoral Commission determines it, subject to the courts. The government has not submitted the eligibility of any intending candidate and will not do so. It would be inappropriate for the President, as Head of State and as an intending candidate, to make a public declaration on the eligibility of another candidate.
The measures recommended in the White Paper—further criminal investigation, a forensic audit, referral to appropriate authorities, and action concerning Mr Bensouda’s office as Mayor—are described as recommendations for action by the competent authorities, not determinations of personal liability. They are consistent with sections 11.12 and 12.1 of the Report, which provide for verification, notice, and an opportunity to respond before any final assessment, demand, or enforcement. The Commission has taken no surcharge, demand, or enforcement action against Mr Bensouda. The Commission will take any such step only in accordance with applicable law, after notice and an opportunity to respond, and with due regard to the pending appeal.
Finally, the letter notes that the election campaign period has not commenced. Discharging a mandatory constitutional duty within its prescribed period is not a use of State resources for political propaganda. Any complaint under the Elections Act 2025 is a matter for the Independent Electoral Commission.
The response also corrects references in UNITE’s letter to a notice dated “12th May 2006” and to “section 60(2)(3)” of the Constitution, taking these to mean 12 May 2026 and section 62(3). It concludes by reaffirming the President’s commitment to free, fair, and peaceful elections, the independence of the Independent Electoral Commission and the courts, and the equal treatment of all candidates under the law.
