Gambia White Paper: UNITE Challenges Bensouda Eligibility Finding

• The UNITE Party accuses the Gambian government of misrepresenting a commission of inquiry report in a white paper, potentially impacting Talib Ahmed Bensouda's eligibility for the 2026 presidential election.
• UNITE fears the government's white paper could confuse the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) and lead to the disqualification of their candidate.
• The party asserts the Commission of Inquiry did not find Bensouda personally liable for constitutional disqualifying offenses, despite an adverse-finding notice regarding his influence.
• Under Section 204 of the Gambian Constitution, individuals adversely mentioned by a commission must receive findings and reasons for appeal, which Bensouda did and subsequently appealed.
• UNITE argues the government's white paper is a response, not a new legal finding, and the IEC should rely on the commission's original report for eligibility decisions.

This scenario highlights the critical distinction between an official commission of inquiry report and a government's subsequent white paper, particularly concerning their legal weight and impact on individual rights, such as eligibility for public office.

The UNITE Party has publicly accused the Gambian government of misrepresenting the findings of a significant commission of inquiry in a recently published white paper. This accusation comes at a critical juncture, shortly before the nomination period for the 2026 election, and directly impacts the party's presidential candidate, Talib Ahmed Bensouda, who recently resigned as Mayor. The party fears that the government's white paper could mislead the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) regarding Bensouda's eligibility to contest the upcoming polls.

Abdul Aziz Bensouda, UNITE's secretary for legal and constitutional affairs, articulated the party's concern, suggesting the government's actions are designed to confuse the public and potentially prompt the IEC to disqualify their candidate. In response, UNITE has called upon President Adama Barrow to issue a clarification of the government's position before the nomination deadline of November 7, aiming to prevent any misinterpretation that could jeopardize Bensouda's candidacy.

UNITE maintains that the Commission of Inquiry into the Conduct of Local Government Councils did not establish personal liability against Bensouda for corruption, negligence, misconduct, or improper behavior. These specific categories, according to the party, are the only grounds that would constitutionally bar an individual from holding public office. While the commission's report, submitted to the President on May 11, 2026, did acknowledge Bensouda's influence over council affairs and recommended further action, UNITE argues these findings do not equate to a constitutional impediment to his eligibility.

Bensouda received an adverse-finding notice on May 12, which indicated that evidence from the inquiry revealed matters "capable of constituting an adverse finding" concerning his official conduct. This notice specifically cited his "exercised political and executive influence in a manner capable of causing or sustaining irregular commitments, unauthorized expenditure, irregular project direction, and extra statutory financial exposure." Abdul Aziz Bensouda emphasized the conditional phrasing "in a manner capable of," asserting that the notice did not definitively state that Bensouda had caused or sustained these outcomes. Consequently, Bensouda lodged an appeal against these findings on June 24.

The UNITE party further highlighted that while the commission's report did not establish primary accounting officer liability for the former Mayor, it did point to "oversight level exposure" related to honorary payments, audit follow-up, procurement documents, and revenue controls. They acknowledged that other sections of the report criticized Bensouda's role, noting the former Mayor's office influenced staff recruitment and appointments, and some decisions exceeded lawful limits, alongside exercising operational influence over financial and administrative processes. However, the commission's overarching statement, as cited by UNITE, clarified that individuals named in its appendices "should not be treated as criminally convicted by this report," and that final personal liability would be determined only after due process, including notice, an opportunity to respond, and verification.

A central point of contention revolves around the legal distinction between the commission's report and the government's subsequent white paper. UNITE's legal secretary stressed that a white paper represents the government's response to a report, not a new finding or an independent legal instrument capable of determining a candidate's eligibility. The party contends that the Independent Electoral Commission should base its decisions on the original findings of the Commission of Inquiry, rather than the recommendations or interpretations presented in the government's white paper.

This situation underscores the critical implications of Section 204 of the Gambian Constitution, which mandates that individuals adversely mentioned by a commission of inquiry must be provided with the specific findings and reasons, thereby enabling them to appeal. Bensouda's legal team sought access to the full commission report from the High Court registrar, but the Ministry of Justice reportedly withheld it during the period the government was preparing its white paper. The government ultimately published both the commission report and the white paper online in the week prior to these developments.

The dispute between the UNITE Party and the Gambian government over the interpretation of the Local Government Inquiry report and its accompanying white paper carries significant weight for the integrity of the electoral process and the rule of law in The Gambia. The potential for a government white paper to be perceived as an attempt to influence the eligibility of a presidential candidate raises serious questions about political fairness and transparency. The outcome of this dispute will set a precedent for how adverse findings from commissions of inquiry are legally interpreted and applied, particularly concerning the constitutional rights of individuals seeking public office.

This scenario highlights the critical distinction between an official commission of inquiry report and a government's subsequent white paper, particularly concerning their legal weight and impact on individual rights, such as eligibility for public office. The Independent Electoral Commission's eventual interpretation of these documents will be closely scrutinized, as it will determine whether the government's white paper can indeed serve as a basis for disqualification, or if only the direct findings of the independent commission hold such constitutional authority.

This situation highlights the critical distinction between an official commission of inquiry report and a government's subsequent white paper, particularly concerning their legal weight and impact on individual rights, such as eligibility for public office. Lawyers should monitor how the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) interprets these documents and be prepared to advise clients on challenging eligibility decisions based on potential misrepresentations or procedural irregularities under Section 204 of the Gambian Constitution.

Source: Original reporting via local Gambian news sources