Prominent human rights activist Madi Jobarteh has expressed serious concerns about presidential immunity as it is proposed in the new draft constitution.

Jobarteh made the following argument on Twitter: presidents shouldn’t get immunity, or if they do, it should be severely restricted in comparison to what is being suggested.

“Presidents shouldn’t truly have immunity, in my opinion, and even if they do, it can’t be as stated in either the present draft or the constitution from 1997. There must be restrictions because, in my opinion, presidents must accept responsibility for their decisions and acts as public officials. As such, there are some decisions and actions that presidents may make for which they ought to answer.

“However, that is something we as political scientists, legal minds, and individuals in this field need to really think about carefully: what kind of society do we create where we do not try to elevate someone to a level just because they are a president?” He stated.

Jobarteh emphasized the necessity for responsibility in a democracy and questioned the president’s authority further.

“The president’s powers are something that I found questionable in terms of what, really, makes a democracy or a republic? We already know that the same constitution has grounds for impeachment, even under that immunity. The president may be removed from office by the parliament, but this process is extremely uncommon and unlikely to occur due to its highly political nature. Impeachment proceedings have recently taken place in other republics, such as the United States, and they were unable to end as planned because they are likewise highly political, he said.

He also stated that he thought the technocrats, president, and cabinet should view the proposed constitution from a fresh angle.

This is all the more reason why I wish the president had a different viewpoint and that his advisors—the technocrats and members of the cabinet—would have valued where we are now, as well as our history and experience, but would also have taken the time to consider the bigger picture and the future.

We wish to draft a new constitution since we are a democratic republic and had one before to 1997. It would have been expected that if they had shown leadership and accountability, they would have taken a seat and discussed the kind of Gambia they truly wanted to build. However, he believed that this had not happened, not only at that level but also among the general public and civil society.

In her closing remarks, Jobarteh urged a reassessment of governance narratives.

The time, in my opinion, has arrived for us to seriously start challenging and scrutinizing the dominant narratives and viewpoints on politics, the state, governance, and the constitution. Which kind of state are we aiming to establish? In relation to this specific issue, I believe it to be monarchical, which could have been passed down through colonization and other factors. It is monarchical to attempt to establish certain forms of royalty around the president, such as immunity, prerogatives of mercy, and so forth, as we can observe in other republics throughout the world,” the speaker stated.