Africa-Press – Gambia. In my recent Facebook post on the topic: Are we solving a problem or stoking a fire that may burn us all? I argued about the wisdom of arresting and prosecuting the youths for staging a peaceful protest without a permit, as the Public Order Act requires. I cited examples of countries that had plunged into violence because they attempted to silence the concerns of youths. While some agreed with my arguments, some berated me for seemingly arguing that the police should not have enforced the law in this circumstance. This is even more perplexing for many, given that I am a police officer. Many do not know that I studied peace, conflict, and development, and I am also somewhat attuned to conflict indicators and passionate about peacebuilding. In this piece, I want to give more perspective to my views and concerns on the subject.
The arrest and subsequent prosecution of 24 young Gambians for the offence of staging a peaceful protest at the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) without a permit drew widespread public attention. They sparked heated debates on the nature of law enforcement in The Gambia. While some argued that the youths violated the Public Order Act, which requires prior approval for public assemblies, and that enforcing the law is necessary. My argument, however, is that strict enforcement of the law without consideration of our current context undermines the spirit of fairness and the principles of democratic policing.
In this article, I wish to examine the arrests through the lens of conflict sensitivity, youth inclusion, and democratic policing. I will draw reference from the Conflict and Development Analysis (CDA) 2024, the National Action Plan on Youth, Peace and Security (NAP-YPS) 2025–2030, and the Gambia Police Force (GPF) Community Policing Training Manual. Strict enforcement of the Public Order Act poses the risk of worsening underlying grievances and undermining peacebuilding efforts. My views take cognisance of the fragility of The Gambia’s political and socio-economic environment and therefore the need for tactful and preventive approaches to law enforcement.
The Public Order Act and the Question of Fairness
The Public Order Act is a colonial-era legislation of 1961, which was later amended by Act No. 29 and was further amended in 2009 by Act No. 5. Since I am no legal expert, I would avoid getting into the technicalities of the provisions. However, the Act grants the police and regional governors discretionary authority to permit or deny public assemblies. While its stated aim is to preserve public order, many have criticised the law for granting disproportionate powers to the executive, which can be used to stifle dissent. Although we have recently seen greater flexibility in granting permits, The Gambia has had several cases in which requests for permits have been denied, not for security reasons but political reasons.
In November 2017, the Supreme Court of The Gambia reaffirmed the constitutional validity of Section 5 of the Public Order Act in the case of Ousainou Darboe & Others v Inspector General of Police & Others, declaring that “the requirement of a licence from the Inspector General of police for the holding of a public procession… are reasonable limitations on the right to assembly and to free expression” (Chief Justice Jallow, Ousainou Darboe & Others Judgment, 23 November 2017, p. 7).
However, the Truth Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC) has recommended repealing or amending the Public Order Act. Also, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), and international bodies have consistently called for reform of the Act. They advocate for changing from seeking a permit, which subjects the right to assembly to official discretion, to a system where the authorities are notified, which recognises peaceful assembly as a constitutional right requiring only advance notice rather than prior approval.
The arrests at PURA demonstrate the dilemma of applying the Act in a democratic transition context. While I admit that the protesters breached the law, I submit that its enforcement must be measured against the broader goals of peace, democracy, and inclusion. An important factor to consider is whether punishing youths for peacefully demanding accountability promotes public order or deepens perceptions of injustice.
CDA 2024 and the conflict dynamics in The Gambia
In July 2024, the West African Network for Peacebuilding (WANEP) launched the updated Conflict and Development Analysis (CDA 2024), highlighting several conflict drivers directly relevant to the PURA protest and subsequent arrests. These drivers highlight the broader context in which such incidents occur. When viewed against this backdrop, heavy-handed policing carries implications that extend beyond the enforcement of law, directly affecting peace and security.
The CDA identifies youth marginalisation and economic vulnerability as critical sources of instability. Underemployment and exclusion from decision-making processes erode young people’s self-worth and fuel deep frustration. This frustration often manifests through protests, irregular migration, or reliance on informal economies. Within this context, the arrest of youths for exercising their civic voice risks reinforcing their alienation and exclusion, entrenching the grievances that fuel instability (CDA, 2024:6).
The CDA also identified political and religious polarisation as increasingly undermining social cohesion. The report warns that polarisation, worsened by hate speech, has the potential to trigger unrest. When policing responses to youth protests are perceived as politically motivated or uneven, they risk aggravating these divisions and further weakening trust in state institutions. Heavy-handed enforcement, rather than dialogue, heightens rather than mitigates the risks identified by the CDA (CDA, 2024:6–7).
The CDA also highlights the erosion of the state–citizen social contract as a significant conflict driver. It notes that the slow pace of reform and weak accountability mechanisms have diminished public trust in government institutions. Protests like the one staged at PURA represent citizens’ demand for accountability, transparency, and responsiveness from their leaders. Arresting protesters instead of constructively engaging with their concerns undermines this fragile relationship, reinforcing the perception that the state is unresponsive to legitimate grievances (CDA, 2024:8).
Finally, the CDA underscores the dangers of corruption and transparency deficits in The Gambia’s fragile democracy. At a time when commissions are investigating corruption and the misuse of state resources, strict enforcement of laws against youths rather than political or economic elites deepens perceptions of injustice. Such perceptions are a critical conflict driver because they reinforce the belief that justice is applied unevenly and selectively, eroding public confidence in law enforcement and governance (CDA, 2024:7).
By strictly enforcing the violations of the Public Order Act while corruption cases proceed slowly, the state risks confirming the grievances that the CDA identifies as precursors of instability.
Youth as Agents of Peace and Development
The National Action Plan on Youth, Peace and Security (NAP-YPS) 2025–2030 situates youth at the centre of peacebuilding efforts. It recognises that with 77% of the population under the age of 35, The Gambia’s demographic reality makes youth participation essential for sustainable peace (NAP-YPS, 2025:7). The plan aligns with United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2250 (2015), which calls for youth inclusion in peace and security decision-making processes.
By identifying youths as partners rather than threats, the NAP-YPS envisions a Gambia where young people are empowered to engage constructively in governance. Arresting youths for peaceful protest not only undermines this vision but risks labelling them as security risks rather than peacebuilders. The arrest of the youths contrasts with the stated commitments and the practical need to engage youths positively in conflict prevention.
Enforcement versus prevention in policing
The GPF Community Policing Training Manual stresses that effective policing requires partnership, accountability, and problem-solving, not merely enforcement (GPF, 2021:8–10). Community policing emphasises proactive engagement with citizens, identifying grievances before they escalate into conflict, and addressing root causes rather than symptoms. Similarly, intelligence-led policing (ILP) advocates for evidence-based approaches to crime prevention, prioritising early detection of risks over mass arrests (GPF, 2021:12).
The arrests at PURA illustrate a reactive enforcement approach rather than a preventive one. Instead of opening dialogue with the protesters, the police opted for detention and prosecution, which not only inflamed tensions but also risked damaging long-term trust. In the fragile Gambian context, such approaches are counterproductive to democratic policing principles, which seek to balance security with human rights.
The spirit of fairness and proportionality
Fairness in law enforcement extends beyond legal compliance to encompass proportionality and conflict sensitivity. The CDA 2024 stresses that without visible government responsiveness to grievances, public trust will decline, and the risk of unrest will rise (CDA, 2024:8). The principle of proportionality demands that punishment correspond to the severity of the offence. In this case, a peaceful protest demanding better services hardly justifies imprisonment.
Moreover, in an environment where corruption investigations are ongoing and youths are simultaneously being prosecuted for car drifting, the optics of harshly punishing peaceful protesters risk deepening perceptions of selective justice. Such perceptions are dangerous in fragile states, as they reinforce grievances and erode legitimacy.
Implications for Peacebuilding and Development
The Gambia’s fragile democratic transition requires tactful and conflict-sensitive law enforcement. As the CDA emphasises, poorly designed or poorly implemented policies risk becoming conflict drivers too (CDA, 2024:12). The NAP-YPS urges that youth must be engaged constructively in shaping the future. At the same time, the GPF’s own policing philosophy stresses prevention over repression.
By resorting to mass arrests, the state risks alienating an already marginalised youth majority, eroding trust in law enforcement, deepening political polarisation, and diverting attention from systemic issues like corruption and poor service delivery.
Conclusion
The arrest of 24 young Gambians under the Public Order Act exemplifies the tension between the letter of the law and the spirit of fairness in fragile democracies. While enforcement may be legally justified, it is neither conflict-sensitive nor aligned with the state’s commitments under the NAP-YPS or democratic policing principles outlined in the GPF manual.
The CDA 2024 warns of youth frustration, weak state-citizen trust, and selective justice as critical conflict drivers. Against this backdrop, the police response at PURA risks aggravating instability rather than promoting order.
If The Gambia is to consolidate its democratic transition, it must shift from enforcement-heavy approaches to tactful, preventive, and youth-inclusive policing. This requires reforming the Public Order Act, strengthening community policing, and treating youth not as adversaries but indispensable partners in peace and development.
Source: The Standard Newspaper | Gambia
For More News And Analysis About Gambia Follow Africa-Press
