COALITION OF CONTRADICTIONS: GAMBIA’S OPPOSITION DESCENDS INTO DESPERATE POLITICAL HYPOCRISY

What the Gambian public is witnessing today is not a serious attempt at national renewal—it is a desperate, contradictory, and morally hollow scramble for power disguised as “coalition building.”

Let’s call this what it is: political convenience at its most shameless.

On one side of the table sits the (UDP) and its allies—figures who have spent years loudly condemning anything and everything associated with former President . On the other side? Groups openly aligned with Jammeh himself—movements that still take political direction from a man they claim to oppose in public but embrace in private negotiations.

And somewhere in that same room are figures like —a former Finance Minister and Vice President under , a government violently overthrown by Jammeh—now seated at the same table with those loyal to that very legacy.

If that is not political irony bordering on absurdity, what is?

For years, these same opposition voices have hurled insults at the (NPP) for working with the faction of the led by —a group that has clearly distanced itself from Jammeh’s direct control. They attacked individuals like relentlessly, branding them opportunists for transitioning into the current political mainstream under President .

But now the mask has slipped.

Because the same people who condemned those alliances would have rolled out a red carpet for those very individuals had they chosen to join them instead. That is not principle—that is hypocrisy in its rawest form.

Even more telling is the quiet validation of Fabakary Tombong Jatta’s long-standing claim: that his camp was actively courted by the opposition but refused. Today’s coalition theatrics confirm it. The outrage was never about morality—it was about control.

So the question Gambians must ask is simple:

How can parties claim to reject Jammeh-era politics while negotiating with groups still loyal to Jammeh himself?

How can they preach accountability while forming alliances with unregistered movements and politically ambiguous actors?

How can they demand trust from the people when their own actions demonstrate inconsistency, opportunism, and a complete lack of ideological clarity?

This is not unity. This is desperation.

And it is dangerous.

Because a coalition built on contradictions cannot govern with coherence. A partnership rooted in political convenience cannot deliver stability. And a leadership that bends its principles for power cannot be trusted to defend the national interest when it matters most.

Meanwhile, the reality on the ground in The Gambia today tells a very different story—one the opposition is conveniently ignoring.

There is no dictatorship.
No political prisoners.
No systemic torture.
No forced exile.
No widespread state-sponsored violence.

The democratic space is open. The press is freer than ever. Civil liberties are stronger. These are not slogans—they are measurable realities.

Unlike 2016, there is no national crisis demanding a “grand coalition” to rescue the country from tyranny. What exists today is a functioning democratic system where competition is fair and the people are empowered to decide.

So what exactly is this coalition offering beyond noise?

A “code of conduct”? A “framework”? Endless meetings and committees?

Gambians are not looking for paperwork—they are looking for credibility.

And right now, this opposition bloc is offering very little of it.

Because when political actors abandon consistency, when they weaponize morality only when convenient, and when they embrace the very forces they once condemned—what they reveal is not leadership, but a willingness to do anything to gain power.

That is not a coalition of hope.

It is a coalition of contradictions.

And the Gambian people are far too discerning to be fooled by it.