Alagi Yorro Jallow
Fatoumatta: Diplomacy thrives on discretion, unity, and strategic engagement. Ambassadors—by definition—serve as extensions of their country’s foreign policy, tasked with projecting national interests and strengthening international relations. Yet, in The Gambia, diplomacy has increasingly become entangled in domestic political disputes, blurring the lines between diplomatic protocol and political maneuvering. The recent public exchange between Ambassador Alkali Fanka Conteh and Foreign Minister Dr. Mamadou Tangara lays bare deep-seated tensions in diplomatic appointments, accountability, and the role of political appointees in foreign service.
Conteh’s letter was not merely a response; it was a public defense of politically appointed diplomats—a group that Tangara had criticized during a recent town hall program, arguing that many were underqualified, untrainable, and responsible for diplomatic missteps. By issuing a direct, strongly worded rebuttal, Conteh pushed back against the idea that political appointees lack professional competence, arguing that such appointments are not unique to the foreign service but exist throughout government.
While Tangara’s concerns about diplomatic professionalism are legitimate—especially given missteps in missions like Rabat and Havana—Conteh raises an important counterpoint: accountability must be broader than just targeting politically appointed diplomats. If flaws exist in the foreign service, is the problem one of individual incompetence, or does it point to larger institutional failures? If mismanagement occurs, does it stem from political favoritism alone, or does the Ministry itself bear responsibility for oversight?
Fatoumatta: What makes this dispute significant is that it extends beyond foreign service appointments—it reflects larger frustrations within the government and diaspora engagement. Conteh used his letter to raise broader concerns about the lack of meaningful outreach to Gambians abroad, calling attention to demands for voting rights, legislative representation, and cabinet inclusion. His statement suggests that the government’s approach to external affairs is not only selective but fails to reflect the interests of Gambians beyond its borders.
Moreover, his criticism of the Ministry’s handling of diplomatic challenges, including the silence on Gambian diplomats being declared persona non grata by the U.S. State Department, points to what he sees as selective accountability—questioning why certain failures are ignored while others are publicly condemned.
Fatoumatta: Ambassadors typically operate within diplomatic discretion—their disagreements with ministers are expected to be handled internally, not through public letters. By taking this issue to the media, Conteh’s approach breaks with conventional diplomatic protocol, signaling deeper frustrations that may exist within foreign service leadership and political appointments at large.
However, public disputes such as this risk undermining cohesion within the administration. While Conteh frames his letter as a defense of professionalism, it also exposes fractures in governance—raising questions about whether political appointees are seen as legitimate contributors to diplomacy or liabilities to foreign policy. Are political appointees in the foreign service genuinely undermining diplomatic effectiveness, or is this a scapegoating of a broader issue? Does the Ministry of Foreign Affairs bear responsibility for diplomatic missteps, beyond individual appointments? Is the government failing to meaningfully engage Gambians abroad in national governance?
Fatoumatta: This dispute underscores the need for greater transparency in political appointments and a clearer approach to diplomatic professionalism. If political appointees are to serve effectively, they must be held to the same standards of training, accountability, and merit as career diplomats. Conversely, ministers must ensure that criticism is constructive, rather than divisive, and that reforms target systemic issues, not just individuals.
At its core, this clash is not just about diplomatic competence, but about power, governance, and the political survival of appointed officials. The question remains: will this debate lead to genuine reform or simply deepen political divisions within The Gambia’s foreign service?
Beyond the headlines, this controversy offers The Gambia a moment of reflection—a chance to assess whether the nation’s institutions are shaped by political survival or by genuine service to the people. If a government fails to engage in inclusive decision-making, constructive criticism, and diaspora integration, it risks losing the very legitimacy it seeks to preserve.
Fatoumatta: The challenge ahead is not just about defending or condemning political appointees—it is about whether Gambian diplomacy is driven by expertise or political entanglements. Will this debate prompt meaningful reform, or will it simply fade into the cycle of political posturing? The answer will define the future of Gambian diplomacy.
