By Kebeli Demba Nyima | Legal and National Security Analyst
Madi Jobarteh’s call for the arrest and prosecution of Minister Demba Sabally, based on a single phrase—“we will shed blood”—is emotionally charged, legally incoherent, and politically opportunistic. His entire argument is premised on a fundamental misreading of the Criminal Offences Act, a poor grasp of prosecutorial thresholds, and a deliberate glossing over of precedent and context.
Let’s deal in facts, not feelings.
1. Section 58 Is Not a Catch-All for Outrage
Mr. Jobarteh invokes Section 58 of the Criminal Offences Act, claiming it criminalises Sabally’s speech. That is false. At least in how he applies it.
Section 58 targets incitement where there is a direct, credible, and imminent threat to life or property. The law was not enacted to police political slogans or campaign bluster. It was meant to prevent organised hate speech and violent mobilisation. Sabally’s remarks, while provocative, fall under political speech, not criminal incitement.
Even under British common law, which is the legal bedrock of our system, courts have consistently required proximity and intent. The phrase “we will shed blood” is not sufficient grounds for prosecution unless there is a demonstrable plan, mobilisation, or call to arms. Sabally gave no such direction. His statement was vague, metaphorical, and issued in the context of political solidarity, not insurrection.
2. There’s No Crime Without Mens Rea and Actus Reus
Legal enforcement is not driven by outrage. It is driven by evidence and intent. Madi Jobarteh ignores this completely. He fails to ask: Did Sabally identify a target? Did he issue an order? Was there a resulting act of violence? The answer to all three is “No.”
Without clear mens rea (criminal intent) and actus reus (a criminal act or incitement thereto), no prosecutor with a spine would take this to court. And if they did, it would collapse on day one.
3. The Double Standard Claim is Political, Not Legal
Madi argues that if this were said by an opposition figure, the police would act. Perhaps. But that proves political imbalance, not legal necessity. You don’t correct selective justice by endorsing more selective justice. The standard must be equality under the law. That includes the right to offensive speech.
Let’s not pretend that political theatre is new in Gambian rallies. From Yahya Jammeh’s “I will bury them nine feet deep” to opposition rhetoric promising to “chase Barrow into exile,” the language of Gambian politics has long been incendiary. Selectively criminalising Sabally’s comment now is intellectually dishonest and legally hollow.
4. The Role of the IGP and AG: Lawmen, Not Activists
Madi demands action from IGP Seedy Touray and AG Dawda Jallow, forgetting their duty is to uphold the law, not please Facebook audiences or Twitter mobs. The AG is not obliged to act on public opinion. He is bound by the evidentiary burden and public interest test. Neither of these are satisfied here.
This case wouldn’t survive judicial scrutiny. And if the police arrested Sabally, it would be viewed internationally as a crackdown on speech, not a defence of law. That’s not justice. That’s theatre.
5. Security Risk? Hardly
Sabally is not organising militias. He is not stockpiling arms. He’s mouthing off in a political rally like dozens before him. That’s not a threat to national security. It’s a threat to civility. And that’s a political problem, not a criminal one.
If every hot-headed statement at a rally was treated as a national security matter, the courts would grind to a halt. Intelligence agencies would be chasing microphones, not guns. Let’s keep our focus on real threats, not rhetorical ones.
Final Note: Madi Should Know Better
As a public commentator, Madi Jobarteh has every right to criticise. But when he begins calling for arrests based on misconstrued laws and imagined threats, he veers dangerously into the territory of political vigilantism dressed up as legal advocacy.
Demba Sabally’s rhetoric deserves criticism. It does not deserve prosecution.
The law is not a hammer for every political nail.
If Madi wants to write legal arguments, he should start by reading the law, not just quoting it.
