Constitution Bill Rejected at Second Reading: Halting the Reform Process in The Gambia?

On 7 July 2025, The Gambia’s National Assembly rejected the Constitution (Promulgation) Bill 2024 at its second reading, marking a major blow to the country’s constitutional reform process. Dr. Satang Nabaneh unpacks the legal and political dynamics that led to the Bill’s failure, including unresolved disputes over presidential term limits, weakened checks on executive power, and a lack of inclusive consultation. The article explores how this latest setback echoes the collapse of the 2020 Draft and underscores the persistent political fragmentation undermining democratic transition. With the 1997 Constitution still in force, The Gambia faces renewed uncertainty over its governance framework, institutional legitimacy, and the long-term prospects for constitutional reform.

Yesterday, in a disappointing turn of events for many Gambians and international observers, the Constitution of the Republic of The Gambia (Promulgation) Bill, 2024, failed to pass its crucial second reading in the National Assembly. While parts of the Bill have faced stark criticism, this outcome signals another significant setback for the country’s constitutional reform agenda, leaving the 1997 Constitution firmly in place and raising questions about the future of The Gambia’s democratic transition.

A History of Missed Opportunities

The failure to pass the Bill at the second reading is not an isolated incident but rather echoes the rejection of a previous Draft Constitution in 2020. Since the end of ex-President Yahya Jammeh’s autocratic rule in 2017, the clamor for a new, democratic constitution has been a central promise of the “New Gambia”. The 1997 Constitution, crafted under Jammeh’s military junta, is widely seen as an instrument that concentrated excessive power in the executive and lacked sufficient checks and balances to prevent abuses.

The initial Constitutional Review Commission, established in 2018, conducted extensive consultations, producing a draft in 2020 that was largely lauded for its progressive provisions, including checks and balances and presidential term limits. However, political disagreements, particularly over the retroactivity of these term limits, ultimately led to the demise of the 2020 Draft in the National Assembly. This recent failure highlights the persistent political fragmentation that continues to plague The Gambia’s constitutional reform efforts.

The 2024 Draft, which returned to the National Assembly in July 2025 after postponement of the March 2025 second hearing, was presented by the government as a refined version. However, its contents and drafting process have been highly contested, ultimately leading to yesterday’s rejection.

Legal and Political Sticking Points

The failure of the 2024 Bill in its second reading can be attributed to a confluence of legal and political factors.

Strengthening Checks and Balances

The 2024 Draft presents a concerning trajectory regarding checks and balances, specifically as it suggests removing parliamentary oversight for all appointments (...).

The 2024 Draft presents a concerning trajectory regarding checks and balances, specifically as it suggests removing parliamentary oversight for all appointments, including Ministers, the Independent Boundaries and Electoral Commission, and independent institutions. In its Explanatory Note, Government argue that this will be a ‘cumbersome’ process that could undermine the President's ability to appoint qualified individuals and potentially compromise the separation of powers. This constitutes a significant step backward in democratic governance, as highlighted by various stakeholders. While proponents argue for redressing the perceived overreach of presidential appointment powers in the 2020 Draft, the 2024 revisions result in an undue centralization of authority within the executive. In a drastic move, it expands the recall process to include nominated members and those who gained entry through affirmative action. What is more, it grants the President the unilateral power to remove appointed National Assembly members, representing a significant regression from the current 1997 Constitution system. This risks compromising institutional independence and transparency.

Lack of Consensus and Inclusivity

Mediation efforts, including those facilitated by international bodies like International IDEA, failed to bridge the fundamental divides.

Despite the Attorney General’s stated aim of building consensus during the postponement period, opposition parties and a significant portion of civil society maintained that the 2024 Draft was an executive-driven initiative with insufficient public participation and consultation. While they reiterate the need for a new constitutional framework, many share concerns about the alleged dilution of democratic safeguards compared to the 2020 version. They emphasize the need for a ‘people-centric’ constitution and lament the perceived lack of genuine public participation in the current Draft’s formulation. Concerns about the removal of Chapter V on Leadership and Integrity are particularly strong among CSOs. Mediation efforts, including those facilitated by international bodies like International IDEA, failed to bridge the fundamental divides.

Political Calculations and Rivalries

A crucial and highly sensitive topic revolves around presidential term limits.

The vote was heavily influenced by the approaching 2026 general elections. The opposition, particularly the United Democratic Party (UDP), saw the 2024 Bill as an attempt by President Barrow’s National People’s Party (NPP) to consolidate power and potentially extend his tenure. A crucial and highly sensitive topic revolves around presidential term limits. The 2020 Draft Constitution sought to establish a two-term limit with a retroactive clause that would have counted the incumbent president’s current term, thus precluding President Barrow from running in 2026. The absence of such a clause in the 2024 Draft constitutes a point of contention for various stakeholders. Blocking the Bill became a strategic move to undermine the ruling party’s agenda and force a return to the more widely accepted 2020 Draft, or a complete re-evaluation of the reform process. The NPP, lacking a comfortable supermajority, was unable to muster the necessary votes from independent members of parliament or convince enough opposition members to cross the aisle.

Parliamentary Dynamics of the Second Reading

The immediate aftermath of this constitutional impasse is likely to be characterized by renewed political blame games. In this challenging context, the government will undoubtedly attempt to regroup and consider its options. The specific parliamentary dynamics leading to the Bill’s failure provide insight into potential future scenarios.

The ultimate fate of the Draft Constitution, despite extensive parliamentary deliberation, was sealed by its failure to secure the constitutionally mandated three-quarters majority.

The ultimate fate of the Draft Constitution, despite extensive parliamentary deliberation, was sealed by its failure to secure the constitutionally mandated three-quarters majority. With all 57 National Assembly members present, 35 cast votes in favor, 21 against, and no abstentions, the 1997 Constitution’s threshold proved insurmountable. The defeat of the Draft Constitution was deeply intertwined with the strategic stances of key political actors. The main opposition party (UDP) and other opposition groups have largely opposed the 2024 Bill, advocating for the adoption of the 2020 Draft instead. Their main concerns revolve around the perceived weakening of checks and balances, the expansive powers it grants to the President, the potential for presidential term limit manipulation, and the lack of comprehensive public consultations in the drafting process. They view the 2024 Bill as a betrayal of the original reform aspirations and a move towards entrenching executive power.

Their negative vote proved decisive, along with the 'No to Alliance' coalition, which effectively halted the Bill’s progression. Conversely, the People’s Democratic Organization for Independence and Socialism (PDOIS) maintained its position, advocating for the Bill to advance to its next stage along with some independent parliamentarians. There was a general feeling that the 2024 Draft either represented a regression or diverged too far from previously established principles and merits, necessitating a return to an earlier, presumably more accepted, framework.

There was a general perception of disconnection between the proposed constitutional changes and the will or desires of the citizenry.

Underlying these political calculations were two central grievances voiced by lawmakers. Firstly, a significant number asserted that the Draft failed to adequately embody the aspirations of the Gambian populace. UDP leader Ousainou Darboe has been particularly vocal in his opposition, emphasizing that the 2020 Draft was a product of extensive public participation. There was a general perception of disconnection between the proposed constitutional changes and the will or desires of the citizenry. Second, concerns were widely raised regarding insufficient public consultation during the Draft’s development. This procedural critique was underscored by several representatives citing explicit instructions from their constituents to vote against the Bill, indicating that the perceived lack of popular engagement directly translated into parliamentary opposition. The confluence of these substantive and procedural objections, amplified by the unwavering positions of critical political parties, ultimately culminated in the Draft Constitution’s parliamentary rejection.

Reflections on the Process and Implications for The Gambia’s Constitutional Landscape

The repeated failure of constitutional reforms underscores the deep political polarization in The Gambia. Despite international and domestic calls for consensus, the political will to compromise on fundamental issues appears to be lacking. The process has been criticized for being too opaque and executive-led, leading to a situation where a significant portion of the population, including the diaspora, and political actors felt excluded or misrepresented in the drafting of the 2024 Bill. The postponement of the second hearing, meant to build consensus, clearly fell short of achieving the necessary buy-in.

The failure to adopt a more democratic constitution may perpetuate concerns about the rule of law and good governance, particularly regarding executive overreach.

The immediate implication of the Bill’s failure is that The Gambia will continue to operate under the 1997 Constitution. This means that the existing legal framework, including the criticized aspects of executive powers and the absence of presidential term limits, will remain in effect. The failure to adopt a more democratic constitution may perpetuate concerns about the rule of law and good governance, particularly regarding executive overreach.

On the political front, with no new constitution in place, the matter of presidential term limits remains a sensitive subject. The omission of the retroactive clause to the presidential term limits in the 2024 Draft could impact the future eligibility of the current presidency and therefore continues to divide political actors.

The recurring inability to bring a new constitution to fruition carries the potential for a gradual erosion of public trust in both the political leadership and state institutions.

The recurring inability to bring a new constitution to fruition carries the potential for a gradual erosion of public trust in both the political leadership and state institutions. This trajectory could contribute to increased civic disengagement or, under certain conditions, manifest itself as public unrest. Consequently, this scenario presents a considerable challenge to the successful completion of The Gambia’s democratic transition. Public discourse is currently characterized by a notable dichotomy in sentiment. On the one hand, there is palpable fatigue with the protracted and seemingly endless constitutional reform process, leading to a desire for immediate stability. On the other, a significant portion of the populace remains steadfast in its pursuit of a genuinely transformative constitution.

In the absence of a foundational legal instrument that clearly articulates democratic principles and provides for strong checks and balances, the progress achieved since 2017 remains inherently vulnerable. International partners, who have demonstrated significant commitment to The Gambia's democratic evolution, are likely to express their reservations and may encourage the government to initiate a renewed and more participatory reform process.

What is Next?

Looking ahead, one potential path could involve a new attempt at comprehensive constitutional reform. This approach would, however, necessitate a fundamental shift, likely requiring genuine, broad-based consultations and a clear willingness to compromise on contentious issues. Such an endeavor would essentially demand a fresh start, potentially involving the establishment of a new Constitutional Review Commission, or even a cross-party committee, specifically tasked with drafting.

Should the 2024 Draft have passed the second reading and proceeded to the consideration stage, it would have faced substantial challenges at the committee level and, eventually, in plenary. Notably, several organizations, including the National Human Rights Commission, The Association of non-Governmental Organizations (TANGO) and Gambia Participates have submitted position papers that largely align with, or even advocate for improvements to the 2020 Draft. The relevant parliamentary committee would have been compelled to address these proposals. The likely outcome would have been a push from the UDP and the proponents of the 2020 Draft to adopt these proposals, directly contradicting the position of the NPP and its allies.

Alternatively, the government might choose to pivot its attention to other legislative reforms, such as electoral reforms, in an effort to demonstrate progress and rectify the disenfranchisement of the diaspora.

Alternatively, the government might choose to pivot its attention to other legislative reforms, such as electoral reforms, in an effort to demonstrate progress and rectify the disenfranchisement of the diaspora. Yet, these efforts will likely be viewed with suspicion if core constitutional issues remain unaddressed, potentially undermining their impact. Should a clear path forward for constitutional reform fails to materialize, The Gambia could face a prolonged period of political stalemate, potentially leading to a crisis of legitimacy for its governing institutions.

Another option, though fraught with its own challenges, is to amend the existing 1997 Constitution to integrate some of the more forward-looking elements of the 2020 Draft. The inherent difficulty in this strategy lies in the constitutional amendment procedure itself. As outlined in Sections 226 (2)(b) and (4) of the 1997 Constitution, the process is as rigorous as enacting a new constitution, requiring a three-quarters majority vote from all National Assembly members across two readings, and—for many of the most critical provisions—subsequent passage in a national referendum with a demanding threshold of 50% participation and 75% approval. More fundamentally, the 1997 Constitution is widely viewed as a legacy of the past dictatorship. For many, it is a symbolic anchor to an era The Gambia is striving to break free from, making people highly reluctant to simply support its amendment and instead deeply committed to the idea of a completely new constitution that truly reflects a democratic future and the aspirations of the transitional justice process.

This moment presents an opportunity for all political actors to engage in critical reflection on the recent setback and to subsequently commit to a profoundly inclusive and consensual reform process.

This moment presents an opportunity for all political actors to engage in critical reflection on the recent setback and to subsequently commit to a profoundly inclusive and consensual reform process. The success of this endeavor hinges on prioritizing the long-term democratic aspirations of the Gambian people over transient political gains. Ultimately, the very foundation of The Gambia’s democratic future rests on these crucial decisions, which must empower and truly reflect the collective will of its citizenry. It is sustained engagement and collective drive that will undoubtedly define the success of the next stages of this vital reform.

Dr. Satang Nabaneh is Assistant Professor of Practice and Research Professor of Law at the University of Dayton and serves as Director of Programs of the Human Rights Center. She is the Founder and Editor of Law Hub Gambia. Originally from The Gambia, she holds an LLD from the University of Pretoria and a PhD from the University of Washington.

♦ ♦ ♦ 

Suggested citation: Satang Nabaneh, ‘Constitution Bill Rejected at Second Reading: Halting the Reform Process in The Gambia?’, ConstitutionNet, International IDEA, 8 July 2025, https://constitutionnet.org/news/voices/constitution-bill-rejected-second-reading-halting-reform-process-gambia

Click here for updates on constitutional developments in The Gambia.