Open Gambia

26/08/2026

Life Lessons at Our Doorsteps: A Reflexive Exercise. Take a moment and breathe deeply.
Salifu Manneh.
Wednesday, 26.08.26.

Life lessons are in our faces and on our doorsteps every day, but do we ever heed the signs and warnings?

Walk into a hospital ward and look around. Almost every bed is occupied. The smell in the air feels medicated. Different people, different ages, different backgrounds, different towns and villages, and different reasons for being there. Yet, despite all their differences, almost every patient shares one simple hope: to get better and go home.

Sadly, some will never go back home.

Some may never again sleep in the houses they worked so hard, for so many long hours, to build or pay for. Houses that once represented success, security and achievement may suddenly become distant memories.

The savings they carefully put away year after year may no longer mean very much to them.

The expensive car parked outside may soon be driven by somebody else.

The beautiful clothes hanging in the wardrobe remain untouched.

The expensive bed at home may have been empty for months, while its owner lies in a hospital bed longing simply for another chance to walk through their own front door.

And suddenly, the things we spend much of our lives chasing become strangely insignificant.

Life- what does it really mean?

Perhaps this is one of the greatest reflexive exercises available to us.

We spend years competing, accumulating, arguing, holding grudges, worrying about status and comparing ourselves with others. We postpone happiness because there is always another target to reach: another house, another car, another promotion, another amount of money to save.

But illness can change the meaning of everything overnight.

The person who once wanted a bigger house may now want to go home.

The person who wanted more money may now willingly surrender everything for more time.

The person who was always too busy for family may now desperately wait for the sound of familiar footsteps approaching the hospital bed.

The person who worried about tomorrow may suddenly discover that today itself was the gift.

This does not mean that we should stop working hard, saving, building homes or aspiring to improve our lives. These things matter. We have responsibilities to ourselves, our children and our families.

But perhaps the lesson is that we should own our possessions rather than allow our possessions to own us.

There must be room for living while we are busy making a living.

Room for family.

Room for friendship.

Room for forgiveness.

Room for kindness.

Room for gratitude.

Room for the people we love.

And room simply to sit down occasionally and appreciate the extraordinary privilege of being alive.

Hospitals quietly teach these lessons every single day. So do funerals, illnesses, accidents and the sudden departure of people we assumed would still be here tomorrow.

The warnings are everywhere.

The question is not whether life is teaching us.

The question is whether we are listening.

Your support means the world to us! Please follow our page to keep up with our latest posts, and don't forget to hit that like button and share our content with your friends. Thank you for being a part of the OPEN GAMBIA PLATFORM community. By Salifu Manneh, contributor, 26th August 2026! Views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of TheOpenGambiaPlatform!

You can now write for the Open Gambia Platform, share information anonymously, and join the community. Please share your stories!

26/08/2026

Genocide Begins with Words: The Gambia Must Confront Tribalism!

By Madi Jobarteh!

Genocide does not begin with mass graves. It begins with words. It begins with stereotypes left unchallenged, belittling jokes met with laughter and the casual scapegoating of an entire community for political gain. History shows that ‘the crime of crimes’ does not erupt overnight. It is cultivated over time through small, seemingly harmless acts of prejudice, discrimination, and dehumanization that society too often ignores, excuses, or normalizes. In The Gambia, the widespread and irresponsible use of tribal stereotypes should alarm us all.

It is unfortunate that, since independence, The Gambia has not taken practical and sustained steps to confront the harmful aspects of our cultures and beliefs, and nurture a national culture of diversity, inclusion and respect for the rights and dignity of every person. Every day, from the home to the market to the office, and across private and public spaces, we hear statements that are stereotypical, discriminatory, tribalist, sexist or homophobic.

Whether they come from religious leaders, politicians, journalists, public servants, civil society actors or other professionals, such statements frequently go unnoticed and unchallenged. Consequently, they become accepted, normalized, and reinforced. Within families and circles of friends, it is common to hear derogatory comments about other ethnic communities.

Politics, because it provides access to power, privilege, wealth and status, has made bigotry directed at religion, ethnicity, gender, disability, and age even more pronounced and insidious. Tribalism and other forms of prejudice are prevalent within public institutions, the private sector and even civil society as men and women compete for positions, influence, and opportunities. Religious, cultural, regional, and biological differences are exploited to justify discrimination, exclusion and even violence, all in pursuit of power and privilege.

Ironically, Gambians are quick to celebrate the widespread intermarriage between ethnic and religious communities, as well as the strong joking relationships that exist among ethnic groups, surnames, castes, communities, and regions. Yet, instead of these traditions strengthening mutual respect, equality and national cohesion, tribalism appears to be increasing and spreading.

Like every society, we must reach a point where we consciously decide that all Gambians are equal in rights and dignity as sovereign citizens, regardless of ethnicity, religion, gender, disability, age, political affiliation, or origin. This requires us to cleanse our minds and hearts of bigotry and judge one another by the content of our character, and not by our names, origins, identities, or places of worship. It means democratizing our cultures by removing beliefs, practices and ideas that denigrate some people while elevating others merely because of their identity.

There are lessons to learn from societies elsewhere. Many countries, particularly in the West, have been compelled by their own histories of oppression and inequality to reform their cultures, institutions, and language to become more sensitive to diversity and identity. This is why terms traditionally framed as exclusively masculine have increasingly been replaced with inclusive language, for example, the shift from “chairman” to “chairperson.” Such reforms are neither trivial nor cosmetic. Language shapes consciousness, and consciousness shapes conduct.
The recent uproar involving Imam Baba Leigh and now repeated by Imam Daru Sanyang and others before them such as Seedy Njie should teach us an important lesson. When a highly positioned and widely exposed individual, who is also celebrated as a human rights defender, a religious leader, or a politician, can make stereotypical remarks about an ethnic group, it demonstrates how deeply tribalism, bigotry and other prejudices are ingrained in our society and subconscious. This incident must therefore serve as a wake-up call for The Gambia to confront this deep-rooted and widespread cancer consciously, honestly, and decisively.

We must be alarmed that our society is becoming increasingly polarized and intolerant, a dangerous path that can lead to persecution, conflict and, in the worst circumstances, genocide. Many years ago, I said that Truth no longer exists in The Gambia as we do not even agree on basic facts. Rather every issue and every person is viewed first through the lens of ethnicity, political party, or religion. A society built on such warped thinking in which citizens cannot agree on basic facts, is inevitably moving towards division and conflict.

This sectarian mindset excuses or condemns corruption depending on the ethnicity, religion or political affiliation of the person involved. It supports or opposes abuse of office according to the identity or party of the perpetrator. It demands or denies justice depending on who the victim is and who committed the violation. In such a society, principles disappear, facts become negotiable and wrongdoing is defended whenever the perpetrator belongs to “our” tribe, religion, or party.

We must remember that the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda was preceded by the rejection of Truth, the manipulation of identity and the systematic spread of sectarian propaganda, even though Hutus and Tutsis shared a common language and lived together in the same communities. Names, perceived physical features and social backgrounds were exploited and weaponized to determine who was Hutu or Tutsi. When the violence erupted, neighbours, relatives and members of the same communities turned against one another. Families and communities were torn apart as people who had lived side by side participated in the destruction of one another.

Gambians must wake up. Resorting to whataboutism and false equivalence because we wish to defend someone from our tribe, religion or political party will ultimately consume us all. If you have never condemned tribalism, start today. Do not search the past to determine who was condemned and who was spared before deciding whether to condemn or defend the tribalism occurring today. That posture may provide temporary satisfaction, but it causes permanent damage to the nation.

Tribalism is wrong regardless of who perpetrates it or which community is targeted. We must condemn it consistently, confront it collectively and ensure that no person or institution is permitted to normalize it. The time to act is now before careless words become discriminatory practices, discriminatory practices become persecution, and persecution becomes irreversible tragedy.

For The Gambia, Our Homeland

25/08/2026

Who's Imam Daaru Sanyang? Why are some of these people called Imam, promoting TRIBALISM and Hate speech? Moral people from their congregation should show their disapproval!

25/08/2026

GPA staff must understand that the contract signed by Albarak and the Barrow Administration determines their terms and conditions of service. The MD is merely leading based on the contract. A change in administration might restore…

25/08/2026

Are GPA staff serious? They have complaints against the Turkish MD for poor welfare benefits; they refuse to place the blame on the company that employs the MD and the government that signed the lousy contract!

24/08/2026

*EFSCRJ’s Concerns on Threats to Civic Space and Attacks on Civil Society and the Media*

The Edward Francis Small Centre for Rights and Justice expresses deep concern over the continuing attacks, threats, misrepresentation, and intimidation directed at civil society
organizations and the media in The Gambia, and the resulting threat to the country’s civic space.

We are particularly concerned by the latest attacks directed at the Executive Director of Gambia Participates, Marr Nyang, and the organization following the publication of its election opinion poll on 21st August 2026. Since the release of the poll, we have observed mischaracterization, insults, and allegations directed at Gambia Participates and its leadership by some government officials, politicians, political parties, and their supporters.

EFSCRJ fully supports the right of every individual, institution and political actor to scrutinize, question and criticize the findings, methodology and conclusions of any opinion poll. No organization or individual is above scrutiny, and freedom of opinion and expression
protects the right to disagree. However, legitimate criticism must not degenerate into personal attacks, insults, intimidation or attempts to impugn the integrity, reputation, dignity or the very existence of civil society organizations and the individuals who lead them.

Such attacks are not isolated incidents. Since 2017, civil society organizations and the media have repeatedly faced hostility and attempts to discredit them because of their work. When such conduct becomes normalized, it creates a climate of fear and intimidation that can discourage organizations, journalists, researchers, and citizens from speaking out, conducting research, or holding public institutions and political actors accountable.

Civil society and the media are indispensable pillars of civic space. Civic space is the open environment in which citizens, communities, civil society organizations, the media, businesses, and other non-state actors can freely organize, express themselves, participate in public affairs and hold power to account. A free and open civic space is therefore essential not only for the enjoyment of fundamental rights but also for democratic participation, institutional accountability, and national development.

Opinion polling is an important and legitimate feature of democratic societies. It provides timely information about public perceptions of government, political parties, institutions, public services, and other matters of national interest. Such information can contribute to
public debate, improve decision-making, and enable citizens and institutions to better understand the society they serve.

Disagreement with the findings of a poll is entirely legitimate. Attacking the credibility or character of those who conducted it is not. Political parties and governments have every right to challenge methodology, question sampling, present alternative evidence and demonstrate why they believe findings are inaccurate. What is unacceptable is to automatically attribute ulterior motives, dishonesty or bad faith to researchers and civil society organizations simply because their findings are inconvenient or politically unfavourable.

EFSCRJ is particularly concerned that this pattern has occurred repeatedly in The Gambia. At various times, government officials, political parties, and their supporters have responded to national and international surveys by organizing press conferences, issuing statements, and granting media interviews aimed not merely at contesting the findings but at discrediting the organizations and individuals behind them. This is an unhealthy and undemocratic approach to public discourse and poses a direct threat to civic space.

A democratic government and political parties should welcome evidence, engage with research, and encourage citizens to examine competing claims. Where research is flawed, the appropriate response is evidence-based rebuttal, not intimidation or vilification. The answer to research one dislikes is more research and not attacks on researchers.

EFSCRJ therefore calls on:

1. The Government, political parties, and their supporters to refrain from unwarranted attacks, insults, intimidation and smear campaigns against civil society
organizations, researchers, and the media.

1. Government officials and political actors to challenge opinion polls and research through evidence, reasoned debate, and transparent scrutiny of methodology rather than personal attacks or allegations of ulterior motives.

2. The Government to recognize its particular responsibility to protect and expand civic space, including by ensuring that civil society organizations, researchers and the
media can operate freely and without intimidation.

3. Civil society organizations, researchers, and the media to continue exercising their
legitimate roles as watchdogs, knowledge producers, and platforms for public participation, while maintaining professional standards, methodological integrity, and
accountability.

EFSCRJ stands in full solidarity with Gambia Participates and its Executive Director, Marr Nyang, and with all civil society organizations, researchers and media practitioners who face intimidation or attacks for carrying out legitimate public-interest work.

We encourage Gambia Participates and all other research organizations and institutions to continue conducting opinion polls, surveys and research that expand knowledge, inform public debate, improve governance and decision-making, strengthen accountability, and contribute to national development.

The Gambia does not need a narrower civic space. It needs a stronger one. Democracy is not protected by silencing uncomfortable findings, rather it is strengthened when evidence can be produced, questioned, debated, and freely contested. EFSCRJ remains committed to defending that space.

2026 – The Year of Empowerment: Empowered Citizens. Accountable Leadershi

24/08/2026

Do we have foreign troops at our statehouse, Airport, seaport, and within proximity to our main military Barracks? If yes! Then tell Dr If it looks like a pig and walks like one, then it's a pig!

23/08/2026

https://youtu.be/ymRZeZVLQbM?is=IbKdB7-4pXg0AWGx

Political commentator Bun Dawda was the guest on AG Radio’s weekly ...

22/08/2026

Beyond Who is Leading in the Survey : A Critical Examination of the Sampling Methodology in The Gambia Participate Survey

Dr Alieu SK Manjang

I have had the opportunity to read the full report of the survey released by The Gambia Participate. While many have rightfully questioned several aspects of the survey, including its funding, the selection of potential presidential candidates, and the exclusion of others, these issues may not necessarily invalidate the survey results but raise important questions about their external validity. In this article, I focus specifically on the methodology, and more particularly, the sampling method: how were the 1,556 respondents distributed across Banjul, Kanifing, Brikama, Kerewan, Mansakonko, Kuntaur, Janjanbureh and Basse identified and reached among more than half a million eligible voters?

Polling and surveys inevitably have limitations, as their findings reflect the opinions of the selected group of respondents interviewed. However, this survey is particularly concerning because it does not clearly explain how this relatively small segment of respondents was reached within each geographical area. Unlike the first round of the survey conducted in 2025, which was also limited in its methodological explanation, the current survey provides little additional information about its sampling procedure. The section on methodology on page 7 is arguably the most critical component of any scientific study, yet it does not sufficiently explain how the sample was constructed.

For the purpose of this discussion, I will assume that a stratified random sampling technique was adopted, as was apparently the case in the previous survey, to capture variations in political attitudes across regions. In that survey, stratification was reportedly based on geographic location—urban and rural—and Local Government Area (LGA) boundaries to ensure proportional representation. This raises several methodological questions: Why did the researchers opt for stratified sampling instead of cluster sampling, given the heterogeneous nature of the Gambian population? On what specific characteristics were the strata defined? Within each stratum, what makes the units comparable? More specifically, which villages and districts were included in the sample, and what similarities were assumed among them?

The survey presents respondents’ gender, education level, employment status, age, and LGA as variables. Yet the extent to which these characteristics alone determine voting preferences in The Gambia is questionable.

In many parts of The Gambia, voting preferences within a compound, village, or district can be highly predictable in favour of, or against, a candidate regardless of the gender, education level, age, or employment status of individual voters. At the same time, a neighbouring compound within the same village, a nearby village within the same district, or an adjacent district within the same LGA may favour different candidates, irrespective of these demographic characteristics.

This points to two important factors that appear insufficiently addressed by the survey. First, ethnicity may be another characteristic influencing voter behaviour. This could help explain variations in candidate popularity across regions, constituencies, and villages—not necessarily because of geography itself, but because of the relative demographic composition of particular communities. The omission of ethnicity therefore limits the survey’s ability to explain some of the variations observed in its findings.

Second, this highlights the heterogeneous composition of regions, constituencies, and villages. It raises the question of whether cluster sampling might offer a useful alternative for capturing variations in voting attitudes. For example, randomly selecting 100 respondents in Basse, Kombo South, or Old Yundum constituencies would not necessarily guarantee representation of the different population groups residing in those constituencies. The same concern applies to the random selection of wards and villages. If such heterogeneity is not adequately accounted for, questions naturally arise regarding the external validity of the findings.

Furthermore, since the survey report does not appear to present geographical locations at a sufficiently detailed level, it would have been useful to identify the constituencies and villages selected, together with the number of respondents drawn from each. This would provide greater transparency and allow readers to better understand the geographical implications of the findings, particularly given that different political parties and candidates have identifiable areas of electoral strength. Limiting the presentation to the number of respondents in each LGA is insufficient, especially when only a small proportion of the population in each area was sampled.

In conclusion, surveys of public opinion can provide valuable insights into political attitudes in The Gambia, but their credibility depends heavily on methodological rigour and transparency. Researchers must recognise that audiences engage with survey findings differently: while some readers focus primarily on the results, others are more concerned with how those results were produced. This requires careful selection of sampling methods, a thorough explanation of procedures, and sufficient transparency to allow independent assessment of validity.

Finally, raising these methodological concerns should not be interpreted as an attempt to invalidate this or any previous surveys conducted by the same institution. This critique is specifically directed at the methodology and transparency of the theses surveys and should be understood within that context.

22/08/2026

https://askanigambia.com

Saturday “Voice of the People” Programme.

Theme: The 2026 political battle: Opposition unity and what the Gambia Participates survey reveals.

Guests: Bun Dawda, a political analyst and commentator.

Date: Saturday August 22, 2026.

Time: 6:00 p.m. in Banjul, 7:00 p.m. in UK, 8: 00 p.m. in Stockholm, 8:00 p.m. in Oslo.

Tune in for informed analysis, diverse perspectives and engaging public discussion on the issues shaping the nation.

AG Radio Talk Show Host: Salieu Njie.

https://askanigambia.com/
Email: [email protected] / [email protected]
WhatsApp Phone numbers:
+46 725 442288 / +353 833 520335 / +220 2900897.

2026 election countdown: 104 days left.

"Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability but comes through continuous struggle." - Martin Luther King Jr.