The Gambia Police Force’s assertion that it “ensured calm” during today’s protest in Westfield reeks of hypocrisy and underscores its inconsistent application of the law. Just yesterday, the same institution arrested and detained 27 peaceful citizens for exercising their constitutional right to assemble, branding their gathering as unlawful. Today, however, the police deployed units to “protect lives and property” at a nearly identical protest, tacitly acknowledging the legitimacy of public dissent. This selective enforcement exposes the arbitrariness of the Public Order Act, which grants police unchecked discretionary powers to approve or criminalize protests based on political convenience. By criminalizing dissent one day and permitting it the next, the police have eroded public trust and revealed that their commitment to constitutional rights is conditional. The suppression of yesterday’s protest; where unarmed activists were met with bullish, unwarranted force; stands in stark contrast to today’s restrained posture, proving that the police prioritize control over consistency. Such capriciousness undermines the rule of law and entrenches a culture of fear, where citizens must gamble on the “whims and caprice” of authorities to exercise guaranteed rights. If mutual respect is essential for law and order, the police have already failed: their heavy-handed tactics and legal contradictions have deepened public resentment, not peace.
The Public Order Act must be scrapped immediately, as it is a relic of authoritarianism that fuels unrest rather than preventing it. By requiring permits for assemblies, the law empowers police to weaponize bureaucracy against dissent, as seen in yesterday’s arrests of activists seeking accountability for looted state assets. This framework inherently criminalizes peaceful protest, enabling authorities to silence critics under the guise of “unlawful assembly.” Such discretion is antithetical to democracy; the right to assemble cannot hinge on the subjective approval of a police command. Moreover, the Act’s vagueness invites abuse, as seen this week: protests are deemed “lawful” or “unlawful” not based on conduct, but on the state’s tolerance for the message. Retaining this law risks national instability, as it signals that grievances can only be voiced at the state’s pleasure. The youth’s resolve to protest again today, despite yesterday’s crackdown, shows that suppressing rights will only galvanize defiance. True public safety lies in upholding constitutional freedoms, not in granting police unchecked power to revoke them. Scrapping the Public Order Act would affirm that in a democracy, the state serves the people; not the other way around.