Amie Bensouda’s Cease and Desist Letter Seen by Some Gambians As Call for Accountability, Not Censorship

Mrs. Amie Bensouda

By Fatou Sillah

Public discourse in The Gambia has grown increasingly charged following revelations that prominent lawyer Amie N.D. Bensouda has issued a cease-and-desist letter to Alhaji Mamadi Kurang, former Secretary of the Janneh Commission, warning of a D144 million defamation lawsuit accompanied by a request for injunctive relief. The development has sparked a wide range of public reactions—some defending Kurang’s right to free expression, others viewing Bensouda’s legal move as a warranted response to what she deems unfounded and damaging allegations.

At the heart of the controversy are statements made by Kurang that Bensouda contends are defamatory and injurious to her reputation. The dispute has quickly gained traction on social media, where supporters of both sides have engaged in spirited debate, raising broader questions about accountability, freedom of speech, and the standards of public discourse in a democratic society.

Ousman Ceesay, a Gambian based in the United States, addressed the controversy on his Facebook page, underscoring a key legal principle: that truth serves as a strong defense in defamation cases. He asserted that if Alhaji Mamadi Kurang’s claims are indeed factual, he should have no reason for concern.

“Truth is the best defense in a libel and defamation suit,” Ceesay wrote. “It is the legal principle underlying the dispute between Alhaji Mamadi Kurang and Mrs. Amie Bensouda. If Kurang’s accusations are based on facts, then he has nothing to worry about following the cease-and-desist letter he received. He has the right to continue making his claims, and if a case is filed shortly, he will have the opportunity to defend his statements before the court,” he said.

Ceesay dismissed suggestions that Bensouda’s lawsuit is an attempt to silence dissent, arguing that the legal process serves both parties by demanding evidence and accountability.

“We must recognize that this is not an issue of suppressing criticism or dissent, but of demanding accountability from both sides. Accusers should be prepared to substantiate the accusations they level. Conversely, the accused have every right to seek redress if they believe they have been unjustly maligned. To label Mrs. Bensouda’s legal action as “intimidation” denies her the right to defend herself,” he said.

Ceesay also underscored that, unlike governments, private individuals lack the institutional power to suppress free speech. A cease-and-desist letter, he argued, is a lawful and legitimate tool—not an infringement on constitutional rights. “Governments hold a monopoly on suppressing free speech. They possess the institutional power and machinery to do so. Only the state can violate constitutional free speech rights, as it has the tools, such as law enforcement and incarceration, to enforce suppression.” He explained.

Another commentator, Natta Mass, echoed a similar sentiment from the U.S., stating that legal resolution should be welcomed by all parties.

“See you in court- That should be Kurang’s reaction, not feel intimidated. And we the public should want that. Let all the facts come out. If all it takes is for someone to “come out and clear your name” after they’re accused, then why are we still having this conversation? People believe who they wanna believe, facts on the other hand stand on their own,” Natta said

Meanwhile, Nanama Keita offered a strong defense of Bensouda’s actions, describing Kurang’s public allegations as speculative and unsupported.

“I fully support Amie Bensouda’s decision to sue the obnoxious Kurang guy for defamation — if the reports are anything to go by. All Kurang does when it comes to the Bensoudas is throw around wild insinuations without presenting any concrete facts or evidence, and that’s defamatory,” he said.

Keita also criticized Kurang’s focus on the Bensouda family, noting that the Janneh Commission was chaired by Justice Surahata Janneh—not by Amie Bensouda—suggesting the focus may be personal rather than factual.

“We need facts, not repeated insinuations. And let’s also be clear: it was the Janneh Commission, chaired by Surahata Janneh — not the “Bensouda Commission.” Yet Kurang’s obsessive focus on the Bensoudas, while conveniently ignoring Janneh, gives the strong impression of a personal vendetta,” Keita charged.