The current noise over a supposed “third term” for President Adama Barrow is nothing more than a premature distraction. It is a debate manufactured to incite division, when in fact the matter is already settled by the Constitution.
The Gambian Constitution does not impose term limits. Therefore, the question of a third term is not legal, nor is it moral. A country is governed by law, not by shifting moral sentiments. Legality is codified, enforceable, and binding. Morality is important, but it cannot override the Constitution. When the law closes the door on a third term, morality cannot be used as a loophole to reopen it. The Gambian people must reject this hollow debate.
The constitution has spoken. The third‑term question is closed. Those who keep dragging morality into it are not defending democracy; they are defending rebellion. The real issue is not legality versus morality. The real issue is whether Gambians will allow sycophants and opportunists to manufacture chaos, or insist on the clarity of law and the certainty of elections. Truth is simple: the Constitution closed the debate. The rest is noise.
Yes, one may argue that legally a president has the right to seek office if the Constitution permits it. But morality asks whether it is right to do so. In The Gambia, the Constitution has already resolved the matter. Debating morality after legality has spoken is hollow. It is not a principle. It is chaos. Those who insist on debating third-term morality are not defending democracy. They are manufacturing confusion. They reduce governance to legality when it suits them, and invoke morality when legality denies them. This is not intellectual honesty. It is political opportunism.
The tactic is clear: sow doubt, stall debate, and expose political opportunists and political machineries to state capture, furthering the Godfatherism political agenda. By keeping the public trapped in endless arguments, they hope to avoid the ballot box. It is a politics of fear — fear of elections, fear of losing elections, fear of facing the people. Morality matters, but morality cannot be weaponized against legality. To do so is to undermine the rule of law and invite instability. Governance must rest on legality, while morality guides leaders to act with restraint and dignity. But when legality itself allows and does not forbid a third term, morality cannot be twisted into a distraction.
Imagine people who call themselves intellectuals or activists, but did not challenge Yahya Jammeh’s 22 years of dictatorship. Some were focused on their own careers abroad, others tried to stay relevant, and some lived in fear or were silent, instead watching football and supporting foreign teams. Now, many of these people are active online and on social media, spreading political lies and planning protests about an issue already settled by law. This is not real activism; it is misleading and wastes national energy. It is wrong to say that elections are decided by promises or slogans rather than by the Constitution and the Independent Electoral Commission.
Yet the debate has taken an ironic turn. Now, it is not just the opposition twisting the Constitution for political advantage. Some journalists, politicians, and civil society groups, including self‑appointed guardians of “democratic purity,” do the same. They loudly champion term limits. Yet, they conveniently ignore the constitutional reality: the President has the legal right to seek re‑election under the current Constitution.
One opposition advocate recently argued that leadership is about duty, not rights. He insists that President Barrow should honor his earlier commitment to serve only two terms. That is a fair moral argument — but it becomes intellectually dishonest when presented as if it overrides the Constitution. Morality cannot replace legality. Duty cannot erase rights. And political preference cannot masquerade as constitutional interpretation.
The advocate is correct on one point: leadership carries moral obligations. But he stops where the truth becomes uncomfortable. He refuses to acknowledge that the Constitution — the supreme law of the land — explicitly allows the President to run again. Instead, he frames the issue as if the President is violating some sacred rule. He is not. You cannot defend democracy by ignoring its legal foundations.
This is the contradiction at the heart of the opposition’s argument. They want term limits to be a legitimate and widely supported reform — but they want to enforce them before they are enacted into law. They want to hold the President accountable to a promise, while refusing to hold themselves accountable to the Constitution. They want to elevate moral duty, but only when it aligns with their political agenda. During the 3-Year Jotna moment, Gambians argued from moral grounds because the Constitution was silent. Today, the Constitution is not silent. It is clear. And clarity demands honesty.
The double standard goes further. The 2016 three-year agreement that some opposition members now cite was an informal promise, not a constitutional requirement. The Constitution sets the presidential term at four years. When the United Democratic Party (UDP) was in government with President Barrow, its leaders supported the full five-year term. The UDP leader even warned he would go to court to stop anyone from removing Barrow after three years. Only after leaving government did the three-year agreement become a moral issue for them. What was once called unenforceable became an important promise. This change is about gaining political advantage, not upholding principles.
The real danger is not whether the President runs again. The real danger is a political culture in which actors, whether government or opposition, selectively invoke morality to override legality. That is how democracies drift into confusion, not reform. If Gambians want term limits, the path is simple: amend the Constitution, not moralize around it, not pretend it already says what it does not, and not weaponize “duty” to erase legal rights. The 2026 debate is therefore not about whether the President can run; he can. It is about whether the opposition will engage the public honestly, or continue to blur the line between constitutional fact and political desire.
At this point, it is essential to address another misconception: that a leader who reconsiders an earlier pledge is somehow betraying democracy. Even God, according to the holy scriptures, has changed His mind. Why then should we deny a leader the right to reconsider his pledge? Democracy is not a prison. It is a process. Leaders may change their minds. Citizens may change their votes. What must never change is our respect for the Constitution.
Across cultures and philosophies, the wisdom is consistent: the ability to revise one’s position is not a flaw — it is a mark of intelligence. Boutros Boutros‑Ghali once said Only foolish people refuse to change their minds. Many thinkers and artists have echoed this. George Bernard Shaw captured the same truth with greater elegance: “Progress is impossible without change.” Those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything. The message is universal: rigidity is not virtue; it is vanity. Growth requires the courage to rethink, reassess, and evolve.
So if a leader reconsiders an earlier political promise, that is not a constitutional crisis. It is not a scandal. It is not a betrayal of democracy. It is simply a human being responding to new realities, new pressures, and new information, just as voters do every election cycle. The ballot box exists precisely because minds can change. What matters is not whether a leader rethinks a pledge, but whether the Constitution permits the action. And in this case, it does. The law is clear. The right exists. The people will decide. Everything else is noise.
The Gambia has already proven its capacity to remove a destructive dictator through a transparent and fair electoral process. Yahya Jammeh’s 22‑year rule ended not through violence, but through the ballot. That is the strength of Gambian democracy. Those who now incite fear of tyranny forget that the people themselves are the ultimate safeguard. Should any leader attempt to follow Jammeh’s footsteps, Gambians will rise again to defend their freedom. Our history is not just a record; it is a warning and a lesson.
The true urgency for Gambians lies not in speculative debates over a third term, but in the pressing realities of daily life: the fight against corruption, the rising cost of essential goods, the crisis of youth unemployment, the empowerment of women, the challenges of climate change, and the revival of a stagnant economy. Since 2017, The Gambia has endured prolonged stagnation. To waste time on a debate already settled by the Constitution is to neglect the suffering of the people. Politicians must shift their focus from institutional gamesmanship to competencies in governance, economy, education, national security, and development. The country needs solutions, not slogans; leadership, not noise; vision, not vendettas.
The debate over a third term is not only irrelevant but also dangerous. It risks political instability, social unrest, and economic decline. It distracts us from the urgent work of nation‑building. Let us close this debate once and for all. The Constitution has spoken. The people will decide. The rest is noise. No more distractions. No more deception. Let justice, law, and wisdom guide our actions. The Gambia deserves better than endless noise — it deserves solutions.
The Gambian people must resolutely reject this counterproductive debate. The constitution has decisively addressed the issue: the question of a third term is conclusively settled. Those who continue to invoke morality in this discussion are not true defenders of democracy; they are simply advocates of rebellion. This is not merely a conflict between legality and morality. The pressing issue is whether Gambians will permit sycophants and opportunists to sow chaos or rise up to demand unwavering adherence to the rule of law and the promise of fair elections. The reality is undeniable: the Constitution has firmly established its stance on this matter. Everything else is just background noise.
