By Staff Writer
Dr. Ismaila Ceesay has defended the continued presence of the ECOWAS mission in The Gambia, rejecting suggestions that the deployment of foreign troops has diminished the country’s sovereignty or control over its national security.
In a statement posted on Facebook, Ceesay said The Gambia’s security institutions remain under Gambian leadership and authority, describing arguments that the presence of ECOMIG amounts to foreign control of the country’s security apparatus as misleading.
“The Gambia’s national security institutions remain Gambian-led, Gambian-commanded, and subject to Gambian authority and laws,” Ceesay wrote.
His remarks come amid renewed debate over the future of ECOMIG, with the latest notable criticism coming from UNITE Party leader Talib Ahmed Bensouda, who has pledged to end the use of foreign troops to protect the presidency if elected in 2026.
Speaking at the signing of the Coalition 2026 memorandum of understanding, Bensouda said responsibility for protecting the president, State House, and the country more broadly should rest with Gambian security forces.
“Gambia’s security will be in the hands of Gambians. No foreigner will guard President Talib Ahmed Bensouda,” he said. “If I am elected president, I will tell ECOMIG thank you, but Gambia’s armed forces, the Gambian secret service, and the Gambia Police Force are the ones that are going to guard the State House and the country at large.”
Bensouda argued that The Gambia’s prolonged reliance on foreign forces had weakened the development of the country’s own security capacity. He also linked weaknesses in the domestic security system to concerns over crime, arguing that Gambian institutions should assume primary responsibility for protecting the country and its citizens.
His comments placed particular focus on the protection of State House and the presidency, duties in which Senegalese personnel serving under ECOMIG have played a prominent role.
The presence of foreign troops has remained a politically sensitive issue in The Gambia nearly a decade after the regional force entered the country during the political crisis that followed the December 2016 presidential election.
ECOMIG was deployed after former President Yahya Jammeh initially rejected the election results that ended his 22-year rule. The regional intervention helped secure the transfer of power to President Adama Barrow in January 2017. The mission has remained in the country under successive extensions, even as debate has continued over how long its presence is necessary.
Ceesay argued that the continued deployment of a limited number of ECOMIG personnel should not be interpreted as a surrender of Gambian sovereignty.
He pointed to the Gambia Armed Forces, State Intelligence Services, Gambia Police Force, and Gambia Immigration Department, among other institutions, noting that they are headed by Gambians and operate under Gambian law and state authority.
“The presence of ECOMIG personnel should therefore not be confused with the transfer or surrender of national security authority,” Ceesay wrote. “ECOMIG’s role is one of partnership, cooperation and complementarity.”
Ceesay also placed the mission within the broader framework of international and regional security cooperation. He argued that threats such as terrorism, organized crime, human trafficking and drug trafficking increasingly cross national borders, making cooperation between countries an important part of modern security policy.
Such cooperation, he said, can strengthen The Gambia’s ability to confront transnational threats without surrendering control over its security institutions or national decision-making.
Ceesay drew comparisons with Germany, which hosts NATO forces, and Japan, where American military personnel have maintained a substantial presence for decades. Neither arrangement, he argued, means those countries have surrendered sovereignty over their governments or security institutions.
“The same principle applies to The Gambia,” he wrote.
But that comparison has drawn criticism from critics who argue that the circumstances are materially different. Critics contend that NATO forces stationed in Germany and American forces based in Japan do not perform the same role in protecting the immediate seat of political power. German and Japanese security personnel retain responsibility for the close protection of their political leaders and principal government institutions.
In The Gambia, by contrast, Senegalese troops serving under ECOMIG have maintained a visible role in security around the presidency and State House. For critics of the mission, that distinction goes to the heart of the sovereignty debate: not simply whether foreign troops are stationed on Gambian territory, but what responsibilities they exercise while there.
Ceesay maintained that ECOMIG should be viewed as a security partner rather than a substitute for Gambian institutions and said the regional mission does not determine the country’s national security policy.
Still, he acknowledged that questions about the mission’s role and future are legitimate and called for the discussion to be based on facts rather than political rhetoric.
“We should therefore have a mature, factual and responsible debate about the role and future of ECOMIG,” Ceesay wrote. “Legitimate questions about regional security cooperation are welcome, but they should not be built on the false premise that cooperation equals control.”
The debate highlights a question that is likely to become increasingly prominent as The Gambia approaches the 2026 presidential election.
Nearly a decade after regional troops intervened during a constitutional crisis and helped secure the country’s first democratic transfer of presidential power, the debate is no longer centered solely on why ECOMIG came to The Gambia. Increasingly, it is about when its mission should end — and whether protecting the country’s president and seat of government should now rest entirely in Gambian hands.
Comments are closed.