PRESIDENTIAL PARDON IS AN ACT OF MERCY, NOT AN ENDORSEMENT OF CRIME

The criticism directed at His Excellency President Adama Barrow over the recent exercise of the constitutional prerogative of mercy deserves to be examined through the lens of law rather than emotion.

A presidential pardon is not a declaration that a convicted person is innocent. Neither is it an endorsement of the crime committed. It is a constitutional power vested in the President to temper justice with mercy after due consideration of recommendations from the relevant authorities.

Some critics have expressed outrage because one of the reported beneficiaries was convicted of rape. While every right-thinking Gambian condemns rape as a serious and reprehensible offence, the legal question is not whether the crime is morally offensive. The question is whether the Constitution of The Gambia prohibits the President from granting clemency to a person convicted of that offence. The answer is simple: it does not.

Our Constitution does not state that a person convicted of rape is forever excluded from the exercise of presidential mercy. If the law intended to create such an exception, it would have done so expressly. No President should be condemned for exercising a constitutional power within the limits of the law simply because some people disagree with the outcome.

It should also be made crystal clear that the President does not personally compile a list of prisoners to be pardoned. There is an established constitutional process involving the relevant authorities responsible for identifying, scrutinising, assessing, and recommending prisoners who may be suitable candidates for the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy. These recommendations are made after considering various factors, including conduct in prison, rehabilitation, humanitarian grounds, and other relevant considerations. The President exercises his constitutional authority based on that established process.

Therefore, if anyone believes that an individual was wrongly considered or recommended, criticism should be directed at the process and the recommendations themselves, rather than falsely portraying the President as having arbitrarily selected names without advice or due procedure. It is both unfair and misleading to ignore the institutional process and place the entire responsibility on one individual.

History also reminds us that presidential pardons have never been reserved for minor offenders alone. Across The Gambia and many democratic nations, individuals convicted of serious crimes—including participants in coups, homicide cases, and major financial crimes—have received executive clemency under different administrations. Whether one agrees with those decisions or not, they were recognised as lawful exercises of executive discretion.

Those who now argue that one particular offence should automatically disqualify a prisoner from pardon are asking for a legal standard that does not currently exist. If society believes certain offences should never qualify for clemency, then the proper avenue is to advocate for legislative or constitutional reform—not to accuse a President of wrongdoing for exercising a lawful constitutional mandate.

Democracy demands consistency. Those who applauded presidential pardons when beneficiaries included people convicted of other grave offences cannot credibly denounce the constitutional power simply because they dislike a particular recipient today. Constitutional powers cannot be judged by political convenience.

President Adama Barrow’s decision should therefore be evaluated on the basis of legality, not social media outrage. Citizens are free to debate whether a particular individual deserved mercy, but it is misleading to suggest that the President acted outside the law merely because one of the beneficiaries had been convicted of a serious offence.

The Constitution grants the President the Prerogative of Mercy. Until the law says otherwise, every eligible prisoner may be considered for that mercy, regardless of the offence for which they were convicted. The rule of law requires that constitutional powers be assessed according to the law, not according to public anger or political sentiment.