Alagi Yorro Jallow scrutinizes the Bar’s historical reticence during the authoritarian regime and its revived constitutional vigilance in a democratic context. By JarranewsTV Staff Reporter The Gambia Bar Association’s (GBA) recent move to contest the appointment of Edi M.O. Faal as Chief Justice has sparked a national discourse on constitutional principles, institutional integrity, and the uniformity of legal advocacy practices in The Gambia. In a compelling commentary, seasoned Gambian journalist and public affairs analyst Alagi Yorro Jallow asserts that the Bar Association’s latest constitutional action must not be viewed in isolation from its behavior during the twenty-two-year tenure of former President Yahya Jammeh. Jallow posits that while the Bar has demonstrated unprecedented alertness in evaluating whether the criteria outlined in Section 139(2) of the Constitution were met regarding Edi M.O. Faal’s appointment, its extended silence during what he characterizes as years of constitutional transgressions under Jammeh provokes serious concerns regarding institutional coherence. “The Constitution was not merely subjected to violations; it was methodically eroded,” Jallow emphasizes, recalling a time during which judges were dismissed, Ombudsmen removed without adherence to constitutional procedures, electoral officials replaced, and constitutional amendments enacted with minimal public resistance from the principal legal entity in the country. A Legacy of Constitutional Silence Jallow notes that the Bar Association was notably absent during some of the most contentious phases in The Gambia’s constitutional timeline. He highlights numerous instances when judicial figures faced dismissal without due process, constitutional officeholders were unseated without requisite tribunals, and essential democratic institutions suffered degradation through executive actions. The commentary revisits the dismissal of Ombudsmen in spite of constitutional protections necessitating tribunal proceedings, the contentious removal of officials from the Independent Electoral Commission, and the ousting of judges whose rulings reportedly disfavored the executive. Throughout these events, Jallow contends that the Bar Association neither convened emergency sessions nor publicly contested actions that many perceived as direct violations of the Constitution. Fifty-Four Constitutional Amendments A principal focus of Jallow’s analysis is the more than fifty-four amendments to the 1997 Constitution during the Jammeh administration. He argues that many of these modifications bolstered executive power while simultaneously undermining institutional checks and balances, often enacted without substantial national dialogue or significant opposition from the legal community. For Jallow, this epoch epitomizes what he terms “the great silence”—a period during which the Constitution underwent repeated revisions without sustained public intervention by the nation’s foremost legal organization. The Chief Justice Controversy The ongoing debate centers on the Bar Association’s stance with respect to Edi M.O. Faal’s appointment as Chief Justice. While recognizing the Bar’s entitlement to interpret and uphold the Constitution, Jallow raises concerns as to why similar constitutional issues were not vocally addressed during prior appointments of Chief Justices under the Jammeh regime. He asserts that the guardianship of constitutional norms must be exercised consistently and independently of political dynamics if it is to cultivate public trust. Omar FaFa M’Bai’s Appeal for Principles Over Political Expediency To bolster his argument, Jallow references the insights of international attorney and scholar Omar FaFa M’Bai, who advocates for a politically autonomous Bar Association devoted exclusively to the rule of law. Quoting M’Bai, the commentary articulates: «”Politics divides. The Bar unites. Parties change. The Bar endures. Let the Bar be the temple of justice, not the tent of politics.”» Jallow contends that M’Bai’s assertion serves as a pertinent reminder that the legitimacy of the legal profession relies not on selective engagement but on an unwavering dedication to constitutional ideals irrespective of the political landscape. Lingering Questions The commentary raises a series of inquiries that, according to Jallow, remain without resolution. Why was there no urgent assembly in response to the dismissal of judges without due process? Why was there no public statement when Ombudsmen were unseated without tribunals? Why was there no enduring dissent when the independence of the Independent Electoral Commission faced encroachment? Why were over fifty-four constitutional amendments permitted to proceed without substantial institutional opposition? And why, Jallow questions, has the urgency of constitutional vigilance emerged so prominently only in the post-dictatorship era? Assessing Institutional Credibility Jallow concludes that the discourse surrounding the appointment of Edi M.O. Faal transcends the qualifications of an individual. Instead, he suggests, it has become a measure of the Gambia Bar Association’s credibility, independence, and institutional recollection. He posits that a Bar Association deserving of public trust must consistently uphold constitutional norms—whether during autocratic rule or democratic governance—and must boldly confront power regardless of political convenience. Citing the enduring legacies of eminent jurists such as Lord Mansfield, Sir Edward Coke, and Lord Bingham, Jallow maintains that The Gambia warrants a Bar Association unwavering in its commitment to justice, impartiality, and the rule of law. For Jallow, the conclusion is unmistakable: the authority of institutions is derived not merely from their current pronouncements but also from their willingness to voice the truth when silence was the most regressive choice. Alagi Yorro Jallow scrutinizes the Bar’s historical reticence during the authoritarian regime and its revived constitutional vigilance in a democratic context. By JarranewsTV Staff Reporter The Gambia Bar Association’s (GBA) recent move to contest the appointment of Edi M.O. Faal as Chief Justice has sparked a national discourse on constitutional principles, institutional integrity, and the uniformity of legal advocacy practices in The Gambia. In a compelling commentary, seasoned Gambian journalist and public affairs analyst Alagi Yorro Jallow asserts that the Bar Association’s latest constitutional action must not be viewed in isolation from its behavior during the twenty-two-year tenure of former President Yahya Jammeh. Jallow posits that while the Bar has demonstrated unprecedented alertness in evaluating whether the criteria outlined in Section 139(2) of the Constitution were met regarding Edi M.O. Faal’s appointment, its extended silence during what he characterizes as years of constitutional transgressions under Jammeh provokes serious concerns regarding institutional coherence. “The Constitution was not merely subjected to violations; it was methodically eroded,” Jallow emphasizes, recalling a time during which judges were dismissed, Ombudsmen removed without adherence to constitutional procedures, electoral officials replaced, and constitutional amendments enacted with minimal public resistance from the principal legal entity in the country. A Legacy of Constitutional Silence Jallow notes that the Bar Association was notably absent during some of the most contentious phases in The Gambia’s constitutional timeline. He highlights numerous instances when judicial figures faced dismissal without due process, constitutional officeholders were unseated without requisite tribunals, and essential democratic institutions suffered degradation through executive actions. The commentary revisits the dismissal of Ombudsmen in spite of constitutional protections necessitating tribunal proceedings, the contentious removal of officials from the Independent Electoral Commission, and the ousting of judges whose rulings reportedly disfavored the executive. Throughout these events, Jallow contends that the Bar Association neither convened emergency sessions nor publicly contested actions that many perceived as direct violations of the Constitution. Fifty-Four Constitutional Amendments A principal focus of Jallow’s analysis is the more than fifty-four amendments to the 1997 Constitution during the Jammeh administration. He argues that many of these modifications bolstered executive power while simultaneously undermining institutional checks and balances, often enacted without substantial national dialogue or significant opposition from the legal community. For Jallow, this epoch epitomizes what he terms “the great silence”—a period during which the Constitution underwent repeated revisions without sustained public intervention by the nation’s foremost legal organization. The Chief Justice Controversy The ongoing debate centers on the Bar Association’s stance with respect to Edi M.O. Faal’s appointment as Chief Justice. While recognizing the Bar’s entitlement to interpret and uphold the Constitution, Jallow raises concerns as to why similar constitutional issues were not vocally addressed during prior appointments of Chief Justices under the Jammeh regime. He asserts that the guardianship of constitutional norms must be exercised consistently and independently of political dynamics if it is to cultivate public trust. Omar FaFa M’Bai’s Appeal for Principles Over Political Expediency To bolster his argument, Jallow references the insights of international attorney and scholar Omar FaFa M’Bai, who advocates for a politically autonomous Bar Association devoted exclusively to the rule of law. Quoting M’Bai, the commentary articulates: «”Politics divides. The Bar unites. Parties change. The Bar endures. Let the Bar be the temple of justice, not the tent of politics.”» Jallow contends that M’Bai’s assertion serves as a pertinent reminder that the legitimacy of the legal profession relies not on selective engagement but on an unwavering dedication to constitutional ideals irrespective of the political landscape. Lingering Questions The commentary raises a series of inquiries that, according to Jallow, remain without resolution. Why was there no urgent assembly in response to the dismissal of judges without due process? Why was there no public statement when Ombudsmen were unseated without tribunals? Why was there no enduring dissent when the independence of the Independent Electoral Commission faced encroachment? Why were over fifty-four constitutional amendments permitted to proceed without substantial institutional opposition? And why, Jallow questions, has the urgency of constitutional vigilance emerged so prominently only in the post-dictatorship era? Assessing Institutional Credibility Jallow concludes that the discourse surrounding the appointment of Edi M.O. Faal transcends the qualifications of an individual. Instead, he suggests, it has become a measure of the Gambia Bar Association’s credibility, independence, and institutional recollection. He posits that a Bar Association deserving of public trust must consistently uphold constitutional norms—whether during autocratic rule or democratic governance—and must boldly confront power regardless of political convenience. Citing the enduring legacies of eminent jurists such as Lord Mansfield, Sir Edward Coke, and Lord Bingham, Jallow maintains that The Gambia warrants a Bar Association unwavering in its commitment to justice, impartiality, and the rule of law. For Jallow, the conclusion is unmistakable: the authority of institutions is derived not merely from their current pronouncements but also from their willingness to voice the truth when silence was the most regressive choice. Alagi Yorro Jallow scrutinizes the Bar’s historical reticence during the authoritarian regime and its revived constitutional vigilance in a democratic context. By JarranewsTV Staff Reporter The Gambia Bar Association’s (GBA) recent move to contest the appointment of Edi M.O. Faal as Chief Justice has sparked a national discourse on constitutional principles, institutional integrity, and the uniformity of legal advocacy practices in The Gambia. In a compelling commentary, seasoned Gambian journalist and public affairs analyst Alagi Yorro Jallow asserts that the Bar Association’s latest constitutional action must not be viewed in isolation from its behavior during the twenty-two-year tenure of former President Yahya Jammeh. Jallow posits that while the Bar has demonstrated unprecedented alertness in evaluating whether the criteria outlined in Section 139(2) of the Constitution were met regarding Edi M.O. Faal’s appointment, its extended silence during what he characterizes as years of constitutional transgressions under Jammeh provokes serious concerns regarding institutional coherence. “The Constitution was not merely subjected to violations; it was methodically eroded,” Jallow emphasizes, recalling a time during which judges were dismissed, Ombudsmen removed without adherence to constitutional procedures, electoral officials replaced, and constitutional amendments enacted with minimal public resistance from the principal legal entity in the country. A Legacy of Constitutional Silence Jallow notes that the Bar Association was notably absent during some of the most contentious phases in The Gambia’s constitutional timeline. He highlights numerous instances when judicial figures faced dismissal without due process, constitutional officeholders were unseated without requisite tribunals, and essential democratic institutions suffered degradation through executive actions. The commentary revisits the dismissal of Ombudsmen in spite of constitutional protections necessitating tribunal proceedings, the contentious removal of officials from the Independent Electoral Commission, and the ousting of judges whose rulings reportedly disfavored the executive. Throughout these events, Jallow contends that the Bar Association neither convened emergency sessions nor publicly contested actions that many perceived as direct violations of the Constitution. Fifty-Four Constitutional Amendments A principal focus of Jallow’s analysis is the more than fifty-four amendments to the 1997 Constitution during the Jammeh administration. He argues that many of these modifications bolstered executive power while simultaneously undermining institutional checks and balances, often enacted without substantial national dialogue or significant opposition from the legal community. For Jallow, this epoch epitomizes what he terms “the great silence”—a period during which the Constitution underwent repeated revisions without sustained public intervention by the nation’s foremost legal organization. The Chief Justice Controversy The ongoing debate centers on the Bar Association’s stance with respect to Edi M.O. Faal’s appointment as Chief Justice. While recognizing the Bar’s entitlement to interpret and uphold the Constitution, Jallow raises concerns as to why similar constitutional issues were not vocally addressed during prior appointments of Chief Justices under the Jammeh regime. He asserts that the guardianship of constitutional norms must be exercised consistently and independently of political dynamics if it is to cultivate public trust. Omar FaFa M’Bai’s Appeal for Principles Over Political Expediency To bolster his argument, Jallow references the insights of international attorney and scholar Omar FaFa M’Bai, who advocates for a politically autonomous Bar Association devoted exclusively to the rule of law. Quoting M’Bai, the commentary articulates: «”Politics divides. The Bar unites. Parties change. The Bar endures. Let the Bar be the temple of justice, not the tent of politics.”» Jallow contends that M’Bai’s assertion serves as a pertinent reminder that the legitimacy of the legal profession relies not on selective engagement but on an unwavering dedication to constitutional ideals irrespective of the political landscape. Lingering Questions The commentary raises a series of inquiries that, according to Jallow, remain without resolution. Why was there no urgent assembly in response to the dismissal of judges without due process? Why was there no public statement when Ombudsmen were unseated without tribunals? Why was there no enduring dissent when the independence of the Independent Electoral Commission faced encroachment? Why were over fifty-four constitutional amendments permitted to proceed without substantial institutional opposition? And why, Jallow questions, has the urgency of constitutional vigilance emerged so prominently only in the post-dictatorship era? Assessing Institutional Credibility Jallow concludes that the discourse surrounding the appointment of Edi M.O. Faal transcends the qualifications of an individual. Instead, he suggests, it has become a measure of the Gambia Bar Association’s credibility, independence, and institutional recollection. He posits that a Bar Association deserving of public trust must consistently uphold constitutional norms—whether during autocratic rule or democratic governance—and must boldly confront power regardless of political convenience. Citing the enduring legacies of eminent jurists such as Lord Mansfield, Sir Edward Coke, and Lord Bingham, Jallow maintains that The Gambia warrants a Bar Association unwavering in its commitment to justice, impartiality, and the rule of law. For Jallow, the conclusion is unmistakable: the authority of institutions is derived not merely from their current pronouncements but also from their willingness to voice the truth when silence was the most regressive choice. Post navigation Dangote Engages in Strategic Investment of US$2 Billion to Propel Economic Transformation in The Gambia Honoring a Gambian martyr of journalism and the long shadow of his disappearance.