The 1997 Constitution, as amended, recognises dual citizenship. Yet the same constitutional architecture imposes significant restrictions upon Gambians who possess another nationality.
A dual Gambian citizen cannot be elected or nominated to the National Assembly. A dual citizen cannot serve as a Cabinet Minister. The presidency is similarly protected by citizenship restrictions. Yet dual nationals may serve the Republic in other positions of considerable responsibility.This raises a legitimate question of constitutional coherence.
How can the Republic recognise someone fully as a Gambian citizen while simultaneously excluding that citizen from important avenues of democratic representation and public service?
Mr President, the current Chief Justice debate makes the contradiction more visible. Section 139 establishes professional qualifications for judicial appointment and defines a “common law country” to include Commonwealth countries and such non-Commonwealth common-law jurisdictions as Parliament may prescribe.
Therefore, if our existing legal framework unnecessarily excludes exceptionally qualified Gambian jurists practising in jurisdictions such as the United States, the answer should not be to stretch constitutional language. Parliament should use the legislative pathway expressly provided by the Constitution.But we should go further.
Mr President, the question is no longer merely whether one distinguished lawyer qualifies for one particular office. The deeper question is whether our constitutional treatment of dual citizens remains defensible almost thirty years after the Constitution was adopted.
Our diaspora has changed dramatically.
Gambians abroad remit substantial resources, invest, transfer knowledge, support families and contribute intellectually and professionally to national development. During the authoritarian years, diaspora Gambians—including many dual citizens—also played an important role in advocating democratic change, organising demonstrations, supporting independent media and keeping international attention focused on human-rights abuses.
We cannot celebrate their citizenship when we need their resources, expertise and advocacy, yet diminish that citizenship when they seek democratic participation.
This is not an argument for abandoning safeguards around sensitive constitutional offices. Questions of allegiance, conflicts of interest, national security and foreign obligations are legitimate. But those concerns should be addressed through carefully designed constitutional safeguards rather than blanket exclusions whose contemporary justification deserves reconsideration.
Mr President, the Chief Justice controversy should therefore become an opportunity rather than another constitutional quarrel.
Let us undertake comprehensive constitutional reform.
Let us determine rationally which offices genuinely require exclusive Gambian nationality and why. Let us reconsider whether dual citizenship should automatically disqualify a Gambian from Parliament or Cabinet. And let us modernise Section 139 so that The Gambia can draw upon the finest qualified Gambian legal minds across appropriate common-law jurisdictions.
Most importantly, let us establish one enduring principle:
The Constitution must not be changed for individuals. It should be reformed for generations.
Interpret the law as it stands. Amend what no longer serves the national interest. Apply the resulting rules equally to everyone.
That is constitutionalism.That is equality of citizenship.And that is the Republic we should build.
Good day!