By Sarjo Barrow, Esq.

The views expressed are solely the author’s own and do not represent any government agency or employer.

When a government asks its people to pay more, through a new tax on every imported item, those people deserve a real conversation about it. Not a rushed vote. Not a process so compressed that one of the most significant tax decisions in recent memory is settled in a single sitting. A genuine debate, with real questions, honest answers, and elected representatives who can be held accountable.

That conversation did not happen. Here is why that matters.

What Was Passed and How

The National Security Council Amendment Bill 2026 was brought before the National Assembly under a “certificate of urgency” by the Vice President, meaning the normal step-by-step review process was collapsed into one session. The bill was passed the same day it was introduced.

It does two things. First, it adds a 1.5 percent charge on the value of all goods imported into The Gambia, including food, medicine, building materials, and electronics. Second, it directs the Gambia Revenue Authority to deposit that money into a new National Security Sector Joint Operations Fund, outside the government’s main treasury.

Having now reviewed the bill, it is a short document. It imposes the levy, assigns collection to the Gambia Revenue Authority, and directs proceeds into the Joint Operations Fund. What it does not do is address the governance conditions that the law requires of such a fund. The safeguards required by law, namely National Assembly budget approval, Central Bank custody, Finance Minister authorization for withdrawals, and Auditor-General oversight, are nowhere in it. A bill of this financial reach was passed before most citizens had a chance to read, question, or respond to it, and those who did vote on it appear not to have been invited to ask why those protections were left out.

Why the Urgency? Nobody Said.

A certificate of urgency is meant for genuine crises, situations so pressing that normal lawmaking cannot wait. No such crisis was explained. What the National Assembly heard was that the bill would create a “clear legal framework” and “sustainable financing” for security reform. These are worthwhile goals, but they are not emergencies. They have been on the national agenda since at least 2017. Goals that have existed for years do not justify skipping the scrutiny the law requires.

Section 149 of the Constitution requires that no tax be imposed except by an Act of the National Assembly. That requirement was technically met. But the deeper principle behind that rule, that people should not be taxed without debate, representation, and accountability, deserved equal respect.

The Questions the Fund Raises

Section 150 of the Constitution and Section 7(1) of the Public Finance Act 2014 require that all tax revenues be deposited into the government’s central account, known as the Consolidated Fund. There is a lawful exception: Section 7(2) of the Public Finance Act and Section 150(2)(a) of the Constitution allow the National Assembly to create a dedicated fund outside the Consolidated Fund for a specific purpose. So the Joint Operations Fund is not, by itself, unconstitutional.

But the law attaches conditions to that permission. Under Section 23 of the Public Finance Act, the fund’s annual budget must be submitted to the National Assembly for approval. Under Section 12(3), receipts must be held at the Central Bank. Under Section 10, withdrawals require the Finance Minister’s authorization. And under Sections 6 and 64, the Auditor-General must have full oversight of the accounts. Having reviewed the bill, none of these safeguards appear in it. The bill is four sections long. It imposes the levy, assigns collection, and directs proceeds to the Fund. It stops there. What has been created, then, is a fund that can receive and spend large sums of public money without a framework for how it will be governed, audited, or approved. That is a concern the bill could have addressed. It did not.

Giving Credit and Asking the Next Question

This Government deserves recognition for its commitment to security sector reform since 2017. The effort has broad public support. But commitment and accountability are not the same thing. Significant public funds and donor contributions have gone into security reform over the years. The question not asked in the National Assembly is a simple one: what happened to that money, and what specific gap now requires a permanent new tax on all imported goods?

What Ordinary Gambians Will Feel

Businesses do not absorb new costs; they pass them on. This levy will show up in the price of goods at every market and shop in the country. The woman buying cooking oil in Serrekunda will pay for it. The builder sourcing materials in Brikama will pay for it. The family buying school supplies in Farafenni will pay for it. It is fair to acknowledge that the world has not been kind to household budgets in recent years. The ripple effects of COVID-19, the war in Ukraine, and instability in the Middle East have all contributed to rising prices for imported goods. These are pressures largely beyond our control. But that context makes it more important, not less, that we are honest about our own contribution to the cost of living. This author is no economist, but it is difficult to escape the observation that in a country where most people live close to the margins, without the cushion of a middle class to absorb new costs, the answer to every funding challenge cannot simply be another layer of taxation on whatever enters our ports. These are people who were never given the chance to understand what the tax was for, or to ask whether it would be properly managed.

What Can Still Be Done

Once signed by the President, the bill becomes law, but that need not be the end. The National Assembly can still demand a full account of how security reform funds have been spent since 2017, clarify how the new fund will be governed, and provide the transparency this process did not. The power of the purse belongs to the National Assembly. So does the duty to use it openly, on behalf of the people it represents.