By Mustapha K. Darboe
In 2016, after losing elections to President Adama Barrow, the former Gambian leader Yahya Jammeh annulled the results on claims of electoral fraud. This set Gambia on path to political instability, prompting an international negotiation led by the regional bloc, Ecowas.
As often known of Ecowas, it was both carrot and stick, with deployment of military forces and a negotiation team including officials from the United Nations, African Union and Ecowas. Jammeh was dissuaded to avoid an apparent suicide though the regional leaders continued their deployment to now ensure Barrow is protected amidst concerns that Gambian soldiers might be loyal to Jammeh.
As part of their deal, the regional leaders, AU and the UN reached a 14-point agreement, published on various websites, that sought to protect Jammeh and his interest. Since his departure, the content of this agreement has been a repeated debate between government officials and Jammeh’s loyalists who insist that its content was not adhered to by the former, though promised.
Claim
On March 5, the discussion around the 14-point declaration resurfaced on the floor of the National Assembly. The lawmaker representing Foni Jarrol— Kebba Tumanding Sanneh— asked if the declaration is being “protected”, perhaps meant to say “observed”, the language minister Dawda Jallow said he did not understand.
However, in the various interventions made by a number of lawmakers trying to ask a much better framed question, Hon Almameh Gibba— the lawmaker for Foni Kansala— claims the 8th point of the declaration protects Jammeh from seizure of his assets, his family and supporters.
“The 8th point talks about the protection of the former President against seizure of his assets, supporters, families… Has that been fulfilled?” asked Gibba.
Fact-check
It is established that the regional bloc, AU and UN issued a joint declaration on January 21, 2017, which was meant to facilitate the transition from Jammeh to Barrow. And the basis of the declaration is that the three international institutions will work with the Gambia government— which is itself part of those institutions— to ensure protection of Jammeh’s rights as former president and citizen established under the laws of the country.
However, there is no point in the declaration that protects Jammeh from seizure of his assets. The point 8th of the declaration Gibba quoted refers to protection of assets “lawfully acquired” as “guaranteed under the Constitution and other Laws of The Gambia”.
Jammeh’s assets were forfeited at different times by the government on the basis of evidence being produced before an inquiry into his government which found him to have amassed unexplained wealth in excess of $362m.
Therefore, the seizure was based on verified claims of an inquiry established by the government, under the laws of the Gambia, which found that assets Jammeh had were, in fact, not lawfully acquired— thus not covered under the declaration.
Verdict:
The claims made by Hon Almameh Gibba and insinuated by Hon Kebba Tumanding Sanneh that seizure of Jammeh assets violate point eighth of declaration issued on January 21 is FALSE.
