A blistering rebuttal from Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) Samsudeen Sarr has set off a firestorm of debate following a Gambia Armed Forces (GAF) press release dated May 6, 2025. The GAF statement, authored by Colonel Lamin K. Sanyang, Director of Press and Public Relations, rebuked Sarr and Essa Mbaye Faal for questioning the military’s reliance on foreign troops and the militarization of civilian spaces like Denton Bridge. Sarr’s sharp-witted response accuses the GAF of evading accountability, threatening press freedom, and betraying the principles of democratic reform.
The GAF’s press release branded Sarr and Faal’s critiques as “misleading,” “incendiary,” “unethical,” and “unpatriotic,” claiming their remarks politicized the military and risked undermining national cohesion. It defended the use of foreign troops at State House, downplayed a reported theft as an “isolated incident,” and called on media outlets, notably West Coast Radio, to show “restraint” in broadcasting dissent. Sarr described this as a thinly veiled attempt to intimidate the press, warning of a slide toward authoritarian tactics.
In his rebuttal, Sarr skewers the GAF’s response as a “tirade wrapped in bureaucratic indignation,” questioning its commitment to Security Sector Reform (SSR). He argues that the military’s politically charged statement undermines its claim of being “apolitical.” “If GAF is truly apolitical, why the public tantrum?” Sarr asks, suggesting a professional response would have offered facts or policy clarifications rather than “sound and fury signifying very little.”
Sarr presses the GAF on unanswered questions: Why does a peaceful Gambia require armed checkpoints at Denton Bridge? Why must foreign troops guard the State House? Why was a theft at the heart of government security kept from the public? He ridicules the GAF’s dismissal of the theft as an “isolated incident,” noting that even minor breaches, like “stolen sugar,” reveal systemic flaws. “For those who understand security culture, even stolen sugar is symptomatic of a sour system,” he writes.
The retired colonel condemns the GAF’s call for citizens to “desist” from criticism, likening it to tactics from “the dictator’s handbook.” He warns that weaponizing patriotism to silence dissent is “not just immature—it’s alarming” for an institution under democratic control. Sarr also criticizes the GAF’s “chest-thumping” and “self-praise,” urging it to embrace scrutiny as a democratic obligation rather than deflecting with threats.
Sarr reserves his sharpest critique for Colonel Sanyang, questioning whether Gambia’s security lies with “patriots or public relations officers with thin skin.” He argues that the GAF’s defensive, contradictory response validates the concerns it sought to dismiss, exposing “not reform, but regression.”
The controversy has galvanized public debate about the military’s role in a democratic Gambia, with many echoing Sarr’s demand for transparency and accountability. His call for a military that serves rather than silences the people resonates widely as tensions mount, challenging the GAF to rise above petulance and prove its commitment to reform.
