The Judiciary of The Gambia has taken note of the recent Afrobarometer report.
We are compelled to address the findings presented in the report, which we have reviewed with dismay, disappointment, and considerable disagreement. While we recognise the importance of public feedback in strengthening institutions, we find it necessary to offer clarifications on several aspects of the report that, in our view, present an imbalanced and occasionally misleading picture of the judiciary's role, performance, and challenges. It needs to be emphasised that the Judiciary covers only the courts and not other institutions within the justice sector. Yet too often, the report blames the judiciary for matters falling outside its responsibility. Due to what appears to be a fundamental misconception of the role and responsibility of the Judiciary.
Lack of Consultation and Institutional Misunderstanding
It is regrettable that the judiciary was not consulted during the preparation of this report. A more inclusive and consultative approach would have helped provide vital context and avoided misrepresentations--particularly about institutional mandates. For example, the assumption that the judiciary determines who appears before the courts and for what crimes reflects a fundamental misunderstanding. This responsibility rests with prosecutorial authorities, not the judiciary.
Public Confidence and Empirical Trends
The report suggests that fewer than half (44%) of citizens are confident that ordinary people can obtain justice in court. While such perceptions merit attention, they must be interpreted alongside objective indicators. The consistent rise in court filings--by as much as 25% to 30% annually--is strong empirical evidence that citizens continue to rely on the judiciary to resolve disputes. If confidence in the courts were genuinely declining, we would expect a corresponding drop in case filings, not a significant increase.
It is also important to note that perceptions are often shaped by socio-economic realities, media narratives, and limited personal interaction with court processes. While such perceptions should inform reforms, they should not be taken as definitive measures of institutional performance.
Access to Legal Advice and Affordability
The findings that only 34% of respondents feel they could access legal advice and 31% believe they could afford to take a legal problem to court reflect structural challenges within the broader justice ecosystem. These concerns, however, do not indicate failings of the judiciary itself. Legal aid provision, affordability, and public legal education fall under the responsibility of other government institutions and civil society actors.
The judiciary has consistently advocated for the expansion of legal aid services and continues to support efforts aimed at increasing access to justice. Notably, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms have been strengthened as more accessible, cost-effective options for resolving disputes--an important development that the report, unfortunately, overlooks.
The promotion of amicable out-of-court settlement of civil cases is one of the eight objectives of the Judiciary Strategic Plan in order to ensure that only matters which need to be litigated are brought before the courts. It is very odd to say the least, but the success of such a policy will now be used as evidence of distrust of the judiciary.
Awareness of Legal Aid Services
The report notes that only 10% of respondents are aware of legal aid services in their community. While this signals a need for improved outreach, it is not a reflection of the judiciary's performance. Awareness and sensitization initiatives fall within the mandate of legal aid boards, government agencies, and civil society organizations--not the judiciary.
Use of Informal Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
The observation that only 20% of citizens would turn to the courts for legal problems, preferring police, traditional leaders, or family members, must be viewed in context. In many communities, traditional and community-based dispute resolution methods continue to play an important role. This is not inherently a sign of judicial distrust but rather a reflection of cultural norms and legal pluralism.
In recognition of this, the judiciary has integrated Cadi Courts and strengthened ADR frameworks, ensuring that justice delivery remains culturally responsive and inclusive.
Trust in the Judiciary
The claim that fewer than half (46%) trust the courts "somewhat" or "a lot" should be assessed within the wider landscape of public trust in institutions. Trust is multifaceted and evolves. While we take such feedback seriously, it must also be weighed against positive indicators such as growing case volumes, enhanced case clearance rates, and institutional reforms.
The judiciary remains committed to strengthening professionalism, transparency, and efficiency across all levels of the court system.
Perceptions of Corruption
The suggestion that 43% of citizens believe most or all judges and magistrates are corrupt is one of the most troubling assertions in the report. Allegations of corruption must be approached with seriousness and handled through appropriate accountability mechanisms. However, broad generalizations unsupported by concrete evidence risk unfairly maligning the integrity of judicial and other public officers who continue to serve with dedication under often challenging conditions.
The judiciary has institutional mechanisms in place to address misconduct and welcomes constructive criticism grounded in evidence. Sweeping accusations, however, serve only to erode public confidence without any basis and without offering any solution. The Judiciary has not hesitated to take action against its officials were necessary.
Equal Treatment and Accountability
The report suggests that 56% of respondents believe people are treated unequally under the law, and 59% believe public officials often go unpunished. While such perceptions reflect broader societal concerns, they should not be attributed solely to the judiciary. The courts are mandated to adjudicate based on law and evidence--not on personal status or influence. The courts have no say on who is to be brought before it.
Recent high-profile decisions, handled impartially and professionally, illustrate the judiciary's growing independence and commitment to equal justice under the law.
Judicial Independence and Influence
The claim that nearly half (48%) believe judges decide cases based on influence rather than law is a serious one. Judicial independence is a foundational principle that the judiciary continues to uphold, even in politically sensitive matters. Structural safeguards and professional codes of conduct ensure impartiality in decision-making. Such assertions, without evidence, undermine confidence in democratic institutions and ignore the considerable progress made in strengthening the rule of law.
Public Support for the Death Penalty
The finding that 80% of respondents support the death penalty has no bearing on judicial performance. Sentencing policies are governed by law and legislative authority. The judiciary's role is to interpret and apply the law, not to create it. The inclusion of this statistic in a report evaluating judicial trust is therefore misplaced.
Judicial Workload and Capacity
In 2024 alone, the courts managed a caseload of nearly 13,000 matters, including over 6,678 new filings--a 25% increase compared to the previous year. More than 5,500 cases were successfully disposed of, reflecting significant progress in capicity and efficiency. These numbers highlight the dedication and resilience of judicial officers--from Cadis and Magistrates to High Court Judges--who continue to operate under considerable pressure.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Each judicial officer, on average, manages over 150 cases, way above the reasonable 50 cases per judge.Often more in certain jurisdictions, especially in Regions like the West Coast where complex civil litigation has surged. Despite limited resources and persistent budgetary constraints, the judiciary has remained steadfast in its service to the public.
Progress and Reform
Far from being static, the judiciary has embarked on meaningful reform. Key achievements include the appointment of additional Gambian judges, the deployment of a permanent judge to the provinces, and the development of a strategic plan. The digitalization of court records and the introduction of case management systems in line with international best practices are part of this ongoing transformation.We are revising our rules, capacity building for staff, and creatinga specialised court to enhance efficiency.
Conclusion: A Shared Responsibility
The Afrobarometer report, while valuable in fostering discussion, overlooks critical institutional progress and sometimes attributes systemic issues outside the judiciary's control to the courts. Strengthening the justice system requires a collective effort from all stakeholders--government, civil society, legal professionals, and the public.
We welcome engagement, dialogue, and critiquebut urge that such assessments be fair, accurate, and contextually informed. The judiciary remains committed to transparency, accountability, and the unyielding pursuit of justice.
Let us work together to strengthen trust in our institutions--not through misplaced and inaccurate narratives but through informed collaboration and shared responsibility.
