Why is the public reluctant to accept the state’s narrative?

When news broke on September 12, 2023, that three police constables, all personnel of the Police Intervention Unit (PIU) were fatally shot, and that two died and another in critical condition at a local clinic, the nation was shocked.

Such brazen acts of violence, especially targeting uniformed officers are unheard of in the Gambia, at least not since the early 1980s when Field Force officer (then police unit) Mustapha Danso shot and killed Eku Mahoney, a senior commander of the Field Force. Mustapha Danso would be executed for that crime, the only legal execution carried out in post-independence Gambia.

Nearly half a century later, two young police officers would be assassinated in a public place, and another critically injured in the same incident.

But the Gambian state thus far has failed to come up with any credible information in relation to their investigations in uncovering what happened.

It is worth noting that The Gambia just emerged from twenty two years of authoritarian rule marred by endemic human rights violations, torture of political opponents, enforced disappearances, summary executions and extra judicial killings, sanctioned or endorsed by the state through direct involvement, cover ups and denials.

In the repressive environment that was in place, citizens dared not ask probing questions lest they become victims themselves. Absence of inquiry does not necessarily guarantee believability.

With the ouster of the tyrant Yaya Jammeh, the Gambian people by and large have expressed a desire to ‘Never Again’ allow their country to recede into such dark days were there was no accountability or respect for the rule of law.

So, in the immediate aftermath of the killings, social media was awash with questions, claims and counter claims as would be expected in any scenario where an event occurred that is a rarity. To ease public anxiety, we expected the state to update the public on what happened and what they have uncovered. But from the get-go, the state bungled their reaction to the tragedy and their public relations attempts made the situation worse.

The Armed Forces Public Relations office was the first to issue a statement in a shooting involving the police within hours of the incident stating that “The Gambia Armed Forces just received information about an alleged shooting incident around Sukuta Traffic Light. Details are sketchy, but a patrol team has been sent to the general area…”. The army has since stayed silent on the shooting incident, probably recognizing that they stepped outside of their mandate.

The next day, September 13, 2023, the first thing we heard from official police sources was through their press officer who “[could] confirm that the incident that happened at Sukuta traffic light involving three police officers is true.” 

Despite the seemingly initial confusion of roles between the army and the police, before either official source could put out a statement, a political operative of the President of The Gambia with the designated title of Deputy Youth Adviser, Lamin K. Saidy Sr., made a social media post singling out members of the United Democratic Party (UDP) to blame for this incident. He wrote; “Madi Ceesay and your team, two officers are shot death [sic] after days of you and your party colleagues called for attack on PIU officers to be dealt with. Two of our officers are shot death [sic] today. I hope you are happy.

He has since resorted to posting funny memes and videos for laughs on the same social media handle, interrupted only once to share pictures from the funeral of the murdered constables. The question is, why would he so brazenly point fingers at anyone even before an investigation could be mounted, much less a motive established? Keep reading and connect the dots.

The day after the incident, there was a broadcast from Sate House of a meeting between the president and security chiefs as well as some cabinet members, at that meeting, the President stated that the goal was to “scare” the police. Why would he declare a motive when the police have yet to identify a suspect?

The Gambia Police Force has been alerted to a shocking act of violence where three constables from the Police Intervention Unit (PIU) were targeted in a shooting at the Sukuta Traffic Light by an unidentified assailant. This incident unfolded in perplexing circumstances, concealing the motive behind this brutal attack in secrecy. 

Granted, president is the head of state and would get briefings, but why would his statement contradict that of the police who were supposed to brief him? Not only that, but he also declared at the same meeting that he would offer a one million dalasi reward for the apprehension of the assailant even though the police have not put out any identifiable descriptions, because according to the police statement:

In response to this grave situation, an immediate manhunt has been initiated to identify and apprehend the individual(s) responsible for this incident. A civilian male eyewitness is actively cooperating with the police investigation, providing a detailed description of the lone gunman, who was observed wearing a Kaftan and carrying a pistol.

A pistol can be easily concealed, and everyone wears a “kaftan” as it is a traditional outfit in the Gambia. There were no details relating to facial features, skin tone, height, etc. So, who should the public be looking for? A man wielding a gun that can be easily concealed?

Curiously though, shortly after that, a woman came forward to apprehend the lone suspect who is currently in police custody. He was apprehended across the border in Southern Senegal and extradited to The Gambia the same day, in fact within a few hours of apprehension.

In perhaps the most brazen of all claims warranting the greatest backlash, the Government Spokesman, Ebrima G. Sankareh offered more details on the arrested suspect, his biography and movements prior to the shooting incident conveniently placing the suspect in a crowd of members of the opposition UDP and declaring that the suspect, at the time of the incident was an employee of the Brikama Area Council (BAC), a regional administrative body headed by an elected Chairman who was elected under the banner of the UDP in the recently concluded local government elections.

With all the access to information that the Government’s Spokesperson has, it would have been very easy to verify that information before presenting it to the public. The BAC administration acted swiftly to debunk that claim as a lie. Ebrima G. Sankareh has since been silent on the matter despite the tsunami of backlash he caused with that allegation.

From the onset, the claims lost their credibility when the president and his camp preempted the police and offered their own theories backed by no evidence with all three claims pointing either explicitly or implicitly towards UDP, a clear politicization of a national tragedy.

Reactions to such outlandish claims were swift, both from the opposition sympathizers and independent entities alike. The government undermined its institution and muddied the waters.

When the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG), the National Security Adviser and their boss, the Minister of Interior finally called a press conference on September 15, 2023, their official narrative raised even more questions and the obvious irritability of the DIG at a journalist’s question was the biggest takeaway from the press conference, apart from his incoherent ramblings on how the suspect was tracked and apprehended by throwing out incomprehensible coordinates and cell tower signal tracking.

The question many are asking is did the police overlook evidence and are trying to build a case around a preemptive narrative by bending the evidence in favor of that narrative? Because two prominent members of the opposition, Momodou Sabally, Campaign Manager of the UDP and Baiyo Sonko, a nominated member of the BAC (also member of the UDP) were arrested in quick succession to the main suspect’s arrest, days after they made a post that the police deemed threatening to police officials. Nothing wrong with questioning them in relation to that, but why was it an issue only after a tragic incident that the president’s henchmen are trying so hard to pin on their party?

Why are they trying to place the suspect within UDP when all his neighbors and family stated that the man has never had an interest in politics? Why has all their stories corroborated each other in placing the suspect at a solidarity gathering of UDP sympathizers and saying that the suspect “confessed” to showing up to that solidarity event armed with a pistol, the suspected murder weapon that thus far cannot be traced?

All throughout his two plus decades in power, Yaya Jammeh, and the state he ran peddled some ridiculous explanations to cover up heinous crimes, including the gunning down of over a dozen school children and the bludgeoning to death of a sitting minister, as well as summary executions of senior military officers. Lies that would be uncovered after two decades through a commission of inquiry.

This reference is not an accusation or a claim that the current state is guilty of the same, but with that backdrop, it is not unreasonable to question and scrutinize the state’s narrative especially if no evidence besides the “confession” of a lone suspect that family members claim is not in the best mental state is all the police have to offer.

Answers to these questions and more are relevant, because if this case is tried by a jury, it would be very easy for the defense to implant reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. And then what for the victims and their families?

We await further evidence.