BARROW’S THIRD-TERM BID: A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, NOT A CONTROVERSY

Recent commentary surrounding President Adama Barrow’s intention to contest the December presidential election for a third term has generated intense debate, with some portraying the matter as a threat to The Gambia’s democratic and transitional justice gains. While such views are part of a healthy democracy, it is essential to ground this discussion in law, constitutional order, and democratic principles rather than sentiment or speculation.

First, the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land.
The 1997 Constitution of The Gambia does not currently impose an enforceable presidential term limit that bars a third-term candidacy. Until such a provision is lawfully enacted, no authority—political, moral, or international—can override the clear framework within which our democracy operates. In a constitutional state, legality cannot be substituted with opinion.

Second, eligibility for public office is determined strictly by law.
The ongoing transitional justice process, including the work of the TRRC, is vital for national healing and institutional reform. However, it is not a legal mechanism for determining who may contest presidential elections. To conflate transitional justice with constitutional eligibility is to blur the lines between legal standards and political viewpoints.

Third, the principle of non-retroactivity must be respected.
Proposed constitutional reforms, including term limits, have not yet been enacted into law. It would therefore be legally untenable to apply provisions that do not exist. President Barrow, like any citizen, is subject only to the laws currently in force—not those proposed or desired.

Fourth, political participation is a fundamental democratic right.
The Constitution guarantees every eligible citizen the right to contest elections and every voter the right to choose their leader. Denying President Barrow the opportunity to run—without a legal basis—would not only violate his rights but also undermine the sovereign will of the Gambian people.

Fifth, democratic legitimacy flows from the ballot box.
The suggestion that contesting another election equates to “overstaying” overlooks a simple democratic truth: leaders remain in office only through the consent of the governed. As long as elections are conducted freely and fairly under the supervision of the Independent Electoral Commission, continuity in leadership is a reflection of popular choice—not authoritarianism.

Sixth, philosophical arguments cannot override constitutional order.
Claims that a law becomes invalid when deemed “unjust” may hold philosophical appeal, but they have no standing within a functioning legal system. The rule of law demands consistency, predictability, and adherence to established legal frameworks—not subjective reinterpretations based on political preference.

Seventh, comparisons with past authoritarian rule are misplaced.
Equating President Barrow’s lawful candidacy with the excesses of the former regime disregards the fundamental differences between the two contexts. Today’s Gambia operates within a pluralistic, democratic system characterized by competitive elections, independent institutions, and expanding civil liberties.

Eighth, international opinion does not determine domestic legality.
While The Gambia values its international partnerships and the support of global institutions, the question of presidential eligibility is a matter of domestic law. Sovereignty rests with the Gambian people and is exercised through their Constitution and democratic institutions.

Ninth, transitional justice complements—not replaces—democracy.
The objectives of truth, accountability, and reconciliation are essential pillars of our national progress. However, they do not suspend constitutional rights or democratic processes. Elections remain the cornerstone through which leadership is legitimized.

Finally, the ultimate decision belongs to the people.
In a democracy, no individual or group has the authority to predetermine electoral outcomes by excluding candidates outside the law. If Gambians believe in change, they possess the most powerful instrument to achieve it: the vote.

In conclusion, the debate over President Barrow’s third-term bid should be understood for what it truly is—a political discussion, not a constitutional crisis. The law is clear, and the path forward is equally clear: allow the democratic process to take its course, uphold the Constitution, and let the people of The Gambia decide their future at the ballot box.

Anything less would undermine the very democratic gains we all seek to protec