Sarjo Barrow Urges Repeal of Public Order Act, Calls for Equal Access to Justice Law

By Seedy Jobe

Gambian-born U.S. immigration judge Hon. Sarjo Barrow has called on the National Assembly to repeal the Public Order Act and enact an Equal Access to Justice law, arguing that the reforms would strengthen civil rights litigation and expand constitutional protections in The Gambia.

Speaking on Chapters with Fatou, a monthly human-interest program highlighting the experiences of Gambians making significant contributions both at home and abroad, Barrow said civil society organizations have a critical role in challenging unconstitutional laws but often lack the financial resources needed to sustain public interest litigation.

He argued that without adequate funding, organizations working to defend constitutional rights will struggle to bring cases before the courts. To address that challenge, Barrow encouraged Gambians, including members of the diaspora, to make modest monthly contributions to organizations such as Gambia Participates and the Edward Francis Small Centre for Rights and Justice.

Barrow also proposed legislative reforms that would allow lawyers representing successful public interest cases against the government to recover their legal fees. He said such a measure would create a stronger incentive for attorneys to pursue constitutional cases that serve the broader public interest.

“The distinction in the U.S. is we have what you call Equal Access to Justice fees. You sue the government, you win, and they pay your legal fees. Once you put that kind of carrot-and-stick balance in our process, in our laws, I think a lot of lawyers will be willing to take on those cases,” he said.

Addressing the Public Order Act, Barrow argued that the legislation should be repealed entirely, saying successive National Assemblies had failed to act despite the country’s democratic transition.

He said the Fifth and Sixth Legislatures had done what he described as a “disservice to Solo Sandeng” by retaining the law, even though Gambians have demonstrated their ability to organize peaceful protests without relying on restrictive permit requirements.

While acknowledging that the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Public Order Act, Barrow said he respectfully disagrees with that ruling. He argued that a subsequent Supreme Court judgment suggests the earlier decision was flawed and maintained that lawmakers have the authority to repeal the legislation, just as they amended other constitutional and statutory provisions, including Section 91(d) and presidential age-limit requirements.

Instead of requiring permits for public demonstrations, Barrow advocated replacing the current system with a notification process, under which organizers would simply inform authorities of planned protests.

“The Public Order Act ought to go. The least they could have done was put a notification requirement. Democracy is a messy business,” he said.

Barrow also addressed proposals to regulate social media, saying the government has a legitimate role in protecting children and regulating the broadcast environment but should avoid measures that restrict journalists or suppress free expression.

He warned that existing defamation and cybercrime laws have created a climate of fear that encourages self-censorship among journalists and ordinary citizens.

As an alternative, Barrow proposed legislation requiring social media platforms to verify users’ identities while protecting their privacy. He said law enforcement authorities should only be able to obtain identifying information through court orders in cases involving cyberbullying or other criminal conduct, citing the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as a possible model.

Barrow concluded that meaningful legal and financial reforms are essential to strengthening democracy and ensuring that Gambians can challenge unjust laws without fear or prohibitive legal costs.

Without those reforms, he warned, many citizens will continue to censor themselves and avoid pursuing legal action to defend their constitutional rights.