By Arfang Madi Sillah, Washington DC.
In Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, we witness the chilling intersection of law and vengeance, personified by Shylock, a character who demands a pound of flesh from his debtor in the name of justice, though what he truly seeks is retribution. Shakespeare’s play, while framed by the stark realities of anti-Semitism, explores a broader theme: the use of law as a mechanism for personal and political destruction. It is a narrative of legal brutality disguised as righteousness, where the formalities of law mask the pursuit of power. In modern-day Gambia, we see echoes of this very dynamic in the conduct of Ida Drammeh & Associates, who, like Shylock, have taken the role of enforcers of state repression, wielding the legal system as a cudgel against the press.
In their fervent defense of President Barrow against The Voice newspaper, Ida Drammeh & Associates are not merely representing a client—they are participating in the systematic dismantling of free speech. Their approach is cold, calculated, and grotesquely reminiscent of Shylock’s rigid insistence on his bond. Shylock’s insistence on his pound of flesh is often interpreted as a metaphor for the dangers of interpreting the law devoid of humanity.
In The Merchant of Venice, Shylock’s legal claim, while technically valid, is morally indefensible, hinging on the perverse satisfaction of watching another man suffer under the weight of an unyielding contract. Likewise, Ida Drammeh & Associates have pursued their own version of Shylock’s infamous pound of flesh, seeking to crush The Voice not out of any sincere interest in the rule of law, but as part of a broader effort to fortify the state’s control over public discourse.
Their case is not one that rests on the merits of justice or fairness. Instead, it is rooted in the raw pursuit of political favor, the firm itself a legal mercenary in service of a government that views critical journalism as a threat to its existence. Much like Shylock, who was blind to the consequences of his legal vengeance, Ida Drammeh & Associates appear indifferent to the broader impact of their actions on democracy. Their focus, it seems, is not on the rightness of their cause, but on the power they can accrue by aligning themselves with those who wield the most influence.
The tactics employed by Ida Drammeh & Associates in this case are disturbingly reminiscent of the legal excesses of McCarthyism, a dark chapter in American history when the law was bent to serve the paranoid delusions of the state. During the 1950s, attorneys, driven by fear and ambition, prosecuted suspected Communists with little regard for due process or truth. The Rosenberg trial, in particular, stands as a chilling reminder of what happens when the law is distorted to serve the political needs of the powerful. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were not afforded a fair trial; they were condemned in a courtroom where the verdict was predetermined, and the law was merely a façade for state-sponsored persecution.
Ida Drammeh & Associates now stand in the shadow of this legacy. By pursuing a legal case that is clearly designed to intimidate and silence, rather than to seek justice, they are repeating the mistakes of McCarthy’s legal enablers. The arguments they present—thin, hollow, and cynical—are not about justice but about ensuring that the Gambian press learns its place: beneath the heel of the state. In this, they are not lawyers defending the law; they are actors in a political theater, performing the role of Shylock, intent on exacting their pound of flesh from a press that dares to resist.
In this modern retelling of The Merchant of Venice, the press takes the place of Antonio, bound not by debt, but by the weight of legal threats and political intimidation. The Voice newspaper, much like Antonio, stands accused not of any real crime, but of challenging the wrong person, of daring to speak truth to power in a landscape that punishes dissent. Ida Drammeh & Associates, in their pursuit of the case, are Shylock’s proxies, wielding the law with a singular, chilling purpose: to silence, to punish, and to extract retribution for the audacity of challenging authority.
The grotesque irony is that the legal tactics employed here, while couched in the language of justice, are nothing more than a veneer for oppression. Just as Shylock’s bond was a pretext for revenge, so too is this case a pretext for crushing The Voice. The goal is not to resolve a legal dispute—it is to ensure that no one else in The Gambia’s media landscape dares to step out of line. The law, in the hands of Ida Drammeh & Associates, has become a blunt instrument of fear.
Contrast this sordid spectacle with figures like lawyer Hawa Sesay Sabally, a name that stands in stark opposition to the legal opportunism of Ida Drammeh & Associates. Sabally was never the type to twist the law into something grotesque for the sake of profit or power. Her defense of the press during the Jammeh era is the stuff of legend, a true testament to what the legal profession ought to be—a defender of the public good, not a servant of the regime.
Lawyer Hawa Sesay Sabally, alongside famous jurists such as lawyer Borry Touray, lawyer Assan Martin, lawyer Neneh Cham, lawyer Lamin Camara, and lawyer Antoumana Gaye— these are the names that should resonate in the halls of Gambian legal history. They have consistently risen to the occasion, understanding that a thriving democracy necessitates a robust and unyielding press. In stark contrast to the avarice displayed by their contemporaries in Ida Drammeh & Associates, these lawyers have repeatedly placed their professional lives on the line for the sake of truth and transparency, recognizing that when the state seeks to imprison the truth, it is the role of the lawyer to tear down the walls that would suffocate it. They have embraced the notion that the lawyer’s duty is not merely to prop up the powerful but to stand resolutely between the people and the forces seeking to oppress them, advocating tirelessly for a society in which freedom of expression can flourish unencumbered.
But what of Ida Drammeh & Associates? Rather than follow in the footsteps of lawyer Sabally and her ilk, they have chosen the path of Shylock, seeking their pound of flesh from The Voice with all the cold calculation of a moneylender gone mad with power. They are not defending the law; they are distorting it, using their skills not to protect the public but to serve as the government’s attack dogs, ready to pounce on any journalist who dares step out of line.
In The Merchant of Venice, Shylock’s rigid adherence to the letter of the law ultimately leads to his downfall, his inability to show mercy exposing him as more monster than man. Ida Drammeh & Associates, in their relentless pursuit of The Voice, are treading that same path, blind to the moral consequences of their actions, eager to please their powerful clients while forsaking the very principles they swore to uphold.
While Lawyer Awa Sesay Sabally and her peers have etched their names into the annals of history as defenders of free speech and champions of the oppressed, Ida Drammeh & Associates will be remembered for quite the opposite. Their legal assault on The Voice will be viewed not as a pursuit of justice, but as a nakedly political act, an attempt to silence critics and reinforce the state’s grip on the media. By standing against The Voice, they are standing against the very foundation of a free society, and in doing so, they are betraying the legacy of the great Gambian lawyers who came before them.
The true tragedy here is not just what Ida Drammeh & Associates are doing to The Voice; it’s what they’re doing to the law itself. Like Shylock, they’ve become obsessed with the contract, with the letter of the law, all while ignoring the spirit of justice. But, as Shakespeare reminds us, those who seek to wield the law as a weapon often find themselves undone by its sharp edges. Shakespeare, in his wisdom, did not allow Shylock’s cruelty to go unpunished. While Shylock may have been within his rights to demand his pound of flesh, the consequences of his unrelenting pursuit of vengeance ultimately led to his undoing. Stripped of his wealth, his dignity, and his place in society, Shylock’s downfall was a direct result of his inability to temper his legal rights with mercy.
Ida Drammeh & Associates, much like Shylock, are heading toward a similar fate. By choosing to serve the state’s desire for control rather than the principles of justice, they are setting themselves up for a fall. Their actions, while legally permissible, are morally bankrupt, and history will remember them not as defenders of the law, but as enforcers of tyranny. They may win their case, but in doing so, they will lose their integrity, their professional standing, and their place in the legal community.
Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice teaches us that the law, when used without regard for humanity or mercy, becomes a tool of oppression rather than protection. Ida Drammeh & Associates, in their pursuit of The Voice, have abandoned the higher calling of the legal profession. They have become, like Shylock, obsessed with extracting their pound of flesh, indifferent to the consequences of their actions on society as a whole.
It would be remiss to discuss this case without acknowledging the courageous role that The Voice newspaper continues to play in defending press freedom in The Gambia. Despite the legal threats posed by Ida Drammeh & Associates, The Voice has stood firm in its reporting, refusing to be intimidated by the looming lawsuit. This is no small feat, particularly in a country where the media landscape remains fragile and susceptible to government interference.
Analysis and conclusion
The role of lawyers in society is to uphold justice, provide sound legal advice, and act in the best interests of their clients while respecting the broader principles of fairness and equality. In the case of Ida Drammeh & Associates, they have failed on all counts. A competent legal firm would have recognized the broader implications of attacking the press in a fledgling democracy. They would have advised President Barrow that such actions only serve to highlight the fragility of his administration’s relationship with the public and cast doubt on his commitment to transparency. Instead, Ida Drammeh & Associates have pushed forward with a heavy-handed approach, which suggests that their primary concern is financial gain rather than providing sound legal counsel.
This behavior is reminiscent of some of the most infamous legal misadventures in history. In the 19th century, William “Boss” Tweed, the notoriously corrupt politician who ran New York City’s political machine, was defended by a cadre of lawyers who advised him to continue his illegal schemes until his eventual arrest and downfall. Similarly, in the case of Ida Drammeh & Ida Drammeh & Associates’ handling of this case is a textbook example of how legal actors can perpetuate injustice through bad legal advice and misguided strategies. Their willingness to target a newspaper rather than offer President Barrow a more thoughtful solution only reinforces the perception that they are not in the business of justice, but in the business of power.
By targeting The Voice in this manner, Ida Drammeh & Associates are setting themselves apart from the long-standing tradition of the legal fraternity supporting the Fourth Estate. Throughout Gambian history, the media and the legal profession have shared a cooperative and mutually respectful relationship. Many journalists who covered court proceedings over the years have later transitioned into legal careers, becoming lawyers and legal officers themselves. This symbiotic relationship has always fostered a sense of solidarity between the press and legal practitioners.
In fact, as previously highlighted, during the darkest days of Yahya Jammeh’s dictatorship, the legal fraternity stood firmly behind the press, providing crucial support when independent journalists faced arrests, intimidation, and censorship. The likes of Lawyer Hawa Sisay Sabally, Borry Touray, Lamin Camara, Assan Martin, Neneh Cham, and Antoumana Gaye were known for their steadfast support of journalists and media outlets, even when doing so put their own lives at risk. These brave men and women ensured that the Fourth Estate continued to function without being completely silenced, despite the regime’s brutal repression.
A prime example of this camaraderie was when Hawa Sesay Sabally represented the Gambia Press Union (GPU) in their landmark lawsuit against the Jammeh government over the draconian Media Commission Act. The Act sought to control the press and impose harsh regulations that would have crippled independent journalism in the country. Sabally’s legal prowess and courage in challenging Jammeh’s oppressive legislation were instrumental in defending press freedom at a time when mere association with the media could land someone in serious trouble. Her efforts, along with those of other dedicated legal professionals, helped shield the press from the worst excesses of the regime.
Yet, today, we are witnessing an unfortunate reversal of this tradition, as private lawyers, who should stand in defense of the press, are now complicit in attempts to suppress it. If President Barrow were relying solely on state lawyers to advance this case, it would be somewhat understandable, as public legal officers are typically inclined to support government interests. However, it is nothing short of preposterous to see private law firms, who should cherish the independence of the media, actively working to undermine it. This betrayal by Ida Drammeh & Associates is not just an affront to The Voice but to the entire legacy of cooperation between the press and the legal fraternity that has safeguarded democracy in The Gambia.
However, this is not the first time in history that a law firm has chosen profit over principle, and it will not be the last. But the actions of Ida Drammeh & Associates in this case should serve as a wake-up call to the Gambian legal profession. If lawyers continue to exploit a corrupt system for personal gain, the very foundations of democracy and justice will be at risk. In the end, the real losers in this case are not just The Voice newspaper and its reporters, but the Gambian people, who deserve a legal system that protects their rights, not one that is used to suppress them.
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this article are entirely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institutions or organizations. The author takes full responsibility for the opinions and analysis presented herein. The author holds several academic degrees, including an undergraduate degree in English literature and literary theory.
