As political parties race to build alliances ahead of The Gambia's December 2026 presidential election, a growing question is being asked about the agreements shaping those partnerships: what exactly did they sign? From the coalition that helped end Yahya Jammeh's rule in 2016 to the alliances being formed today, political parties have increasingly used agreements to determine who they support and how they will contest power, yet many of the documents remain unavailable to the public. The issue comes as African Union and ECOWAS democratic frameworks place strong emphasis on transparency, public participation and credible elections.
In 2016, The Gambia witnessed one of the most important political agreements in its modern history.
Opposition parties, which for years had contested elections separately against the government of former President Yahya Jammeh, came together under one coalition. With the exception of the newly founded Gambia Democratic Congress, which did not join the coalition, the major opposition parties agreed to work together and select a single candidate for the December 2016 presidential election.
The agreement did not remain hidden behind closed doors. The public knew that the parties had entered a coalition. The terms and principles of the arrangement were publicly discussed. Documents connected to the coalition were made available, and the presidential aspirants publicly committed themselves to respect the agreement reached by the political parties.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
The coalition then selected Adama Barrow as its candidate. He won the December 2016 presidential election. The election ended more than two decades of Yahya Jammeh's rule and opened a new chapter in Gambian politics. It became a defining moment in the country's democratic transition, bringing an end to self-perpetuating rule and giving new meaning to the power of political cooperation.
But nearly a decade later, precisely 2026, political alliances have become common again in The Gambia. Parties are entering agreements. Coalitions are being formed. Memoranda of understanding are being signed. Candidates are being selected. Political leaders are appearing together on platforms and announcing new partnerships.
Yet one question repeatedly remains unanswered: What exactly did they sign?
The 2016 Example
The 2016 coalition was born during a period of intense political pressure. Opposition parties had spent years contesting elections separately. The opposition was divided, while Jammeh and the Alliance for Patriotic Reorientation and Construction remained in power.
The decision to form a coalition changed the political landscape.
The parties agreed to put aside their individual presidential ambitions and work towards the selection of one candidate. The agreement and the commitments surrounding the coalition became part of the public political process. The aspirants publicly committed themselves to the coalition arrangement.
The public could follow the discussions. The selection of the coalition candidate became a national political event.
When Barrow emerged as the coalition candidate, Gambians knew that he was standing on the platform of an agreement reached among several political parties.
The coalition went on to win the election. Its victory changed the course of Gambian political history.
The 2016 election gave birth to a new democratic era and brought an end to dictatorship. It demonstrated that political parties could come together, negotiate their differences and present voters with a common political project.
The coalition was not simply an arrangement between political leaders. It became a national political matter. And because it was a national political matter, the public was able to follow the process. That experience now provides an important point of comparison with the alliances that have followed.
The Birth of the NPP and New Alliances
President Barrow later formed the National People's Party in 2019 after the disintegration of Coalition 2016 and his fall out with his former party, United Democratic Party.
Since then, his party has entered into political arrangements with several parties as part of the NPP-led alliance. They have included agreements involving the APRC, the GDC, the National Reconciliation Party, the Gambia Moral Congress, the Gambia Party for Democracy and Progress, Citizens' Alliance and other political actors.
The alliances have been announced publicly. Political leaders have appeared together. Supporters have attended rallies. Party executives have spoken about unity and political cooperation. But the public has largely been left without access to the full texts of the agreements.
What exactly did the parties agree to? What commitments were made?
What did the parties promise each other? Were there agreements about government positions? Were there agreements about parliamentary or local government council contests?
Were there agreements about policy? Were there agreements about the future of the partnership?
These questions remain important because political agreements can affect how a country is governed.
An alliance may influence who is supported in an election. It may influence who receives political appointments. It may affect how parties contest parliamentary elections. It may determine whether parties compete against one another or support a common candidate.
It may shape the political direction of a government. Yet, despite the public importance of such arrangements, the full agreements are often not made available to the people whose votes ultimately give political leaders their authority.
The UNITE-NUP Agreement
The issue has continued into the current political period. The newly founded UNITE party recently entered into an alliance with the National Unity Party.
The partnership was announced publicly. That political development became part of the national conversation. A ceremony was held at the hotel and speeches were delivered. But the public has not been provided with the full details of what the parties agreed.
What exactly are the terms? What are the responsibilities of each party? What commitments have been made? What does the agreement mean for candidates, party members and supporters?
These are not minor questions.
Political parties are not private social clubs. They seek public office.
They ask citizens to vote for them.
They seek the authority to make decisions affecting the country.
When they decide to combine their political strength, their agreements can become matters of public interest. Yet, in many cases, the public announcement of an alliance is followed by silence about the agreement itself.
PDOIS and a Different Tradition
Not every political alliance in The Gambia has followed the culture of secrecy. The People's Democratic Organisation for Independence and Socialism, PDOIS, has provided a different example.
In 2021, PDOIS entered into an agreement with the APP. The signing ceremony was held as a press conference. The agreement was not simply signed before the media and then taken away. Copies of the document were made available to journalists who attended the event. Media practitioners were each served with copies of the agreement. The public, therefore, had an opportunity to know what the parties had agreed.
PDOIS also entered into an agreement with Youth for Change, headed by Alhagie Mamadi Kurang.
That agreement followed a similar approach. The arrangement was made publiThe media were informed. The agreement was treated as a document that citizens and journalists had a legitimate interest in examining.
This approach recognised an important democratic principle: political agreements involving parties seeking public power are different from private commercial contracts. Citizens may not be parties to the agreement.
But they may be affected by it.
And when citizens are asked to vote for an alliance, knowledge of the agreement can help them understand what exactly they are voting for.
Coalition 2026
The issue has again become important following developments surrounding Coalition 2026.
The coalition brought together several political stakeholders in an effort to build a common platform ahead of the December 2026 presidential election.
The process involved negotiations, meetings and discussions among the stakeholders. Eventually, a flagbearer was selected. Talib Ahmed Bensouda was announced the candidate in a process marred by several withdrawals of stakeholders after disagreements over the coalition format (party-led or candidate-led) and allegation inducement.
A document was signed by the Coalition 2026 flagbearer together with the stakeholders. The signing marked an important moment in the formation of the coalition. But the document has not yet been made public. The public knows that an agreement was signed. The public knows that political stakeholders committed themselves to a coalition process. But the public has not been given the full document. The exact commitments made by the stakeholders remain outside public view.
This means that citizens are being asked to assess a political coalition without necessarily having access to the document that governs the relationship between the people and organisations within it. What did the stakeholders agree? What powers does the flagbearer have?
What powers do the stakeholders retain? What happens after the election? What commitments exist between the parties and the candidate? What procedures were agreed for resolving disagreements?
What principles guide the coalition?
Until the document is made public, citizens cannot independently read the answers.
The Gambia First Coalition
The UDP-led coalition, also known as the Gambia First Coalition, has also entered the political alliance landscape. The coalition signed a memorandum of understanding during a public ceremony. The signing itself was public. Political leaders and representatives appeared together. The ceremony showed that an agreement had been reached. But the agreement itself has not been disclosed to the public.
Again, the public can see the political leaders. The public can see the signatures. The public can hear speeches about unity. But the public cannot necessarily read the document that explains what the leaders agreed.
The difference between announcing an agreement and publishing an agreement is significant. An announcement tells the public that something happened. A document tells the public what happened.
The Politics of Signing
Across The Gambia's political landscape, the pattern has become familiar. Political leaders meet in secret. Negotiations take place.
An agreement is reached. A ceremony is organised. The leaders shake hands. They sign documents.
Supporters celebrate. The media are invited. Photographs are taken.
Speeches are delivered. Then comes the rallies. Political parties travel across the country to announce their new partnership. They gather supporters in halls. They hold meetings in hotels. They organise press conferences. They announce that political unity has been achieved. But the document itself often remains outside public view.
The contents may be known to a small group of negotiators and party executives. The ordinary party member may not know. The supporter may not know.
The voter may not know.The journalist may not know.
And without the document, the public cannot independently examine the terms of the political partnership. This creates a gap between political celebration and public information. A rally can announce an alliance. A press conference can celebrate an alliance.
A signing ceremony can confirm an alliance. But none of these necessarily explains the terms of the alliance.
The AU Standard: Transparency and Participation
African democratic standards place strong emphasis on transparency, citizen participation and access to information.
The African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance identifies the promotion of "citizen participation, transparency, access to information, freedom of the press and accountability in the management of public affairs" among its objectives. It also lists transparency and fairness in public affairs, citizen participation and recognition of the role of political parties among its governing principles.
The Charter also calls on states to maintain "public trust and transparency between political leaders and the people" as part of efforts to consolidate democracy and peace.
These principles are important in the context of political alliances.
Political parties are key institutions in a democracy. They organise citizens. They present candidates.
They seek political power. They form governments. They negotiate alliances. The agreements they make can shape the political choices available to citizens.
The African Charter specifically recognises political pluralism and the role, rights and responsibilities of legally constituted political parties. It also calls for democratic elections and the strengthening of democratic institutions.
The question for political parties is therefore not simply whether an alliance agreement is legally valid between the people who sign it.
The larger democratic question is whether citizens have enough information to understand the political arrangement being presented to them.
Access to Information and Elections
The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights has made a direct connection between access to information and meaningful participation in elections.
Its Guidelines on Access to Information and Elections in Africa state that access to information helps voters become informed about political processes, participate in decision-making and hold public officials accountable. The guidelines describe access to information as a foundational requirement for democratic governance and emphasise that voters need accurate, credible and reliable information before, during and after elections in order to exercise their rights meaningfully.
The principle has an obvious relevance to political alliances.
A voter cannot fully understand a coalition simply by knowing its name. The voter may also need to know:
- What the parties agreed;
- What each party promised;
- What the presidential candidate committed to;
- What happens if the alliance wins;
- Whether there are commitments involving public appointments or political positions;
- Whether the agreement contains policy commitments; and
- How long the agreement is expected to last.
This is where the idea of proactive disclosure becomes important.
Access to information is not only about waiting for someone to ask.
The strongest democratic systems encourage the publication and dissemination of important information without citizens first having to demand it.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The African Commission's election guidelines stress the importance of adequate disclosure and dissemination of information and recognise that information is necessary for citizens to participate meaningfully in public affairs.
Applied to political alliances, the principle raises a straightforward democratic question: if parties have signed an agreement that may affect who governs the country and how political power is exercised, why should citizens have to search for it or request it after the alliance has already been announced?
Why not publish it?
ECOWAS and Transparent Politics
The Gambia is also part of the ECOWAS democratic framework.
The ECOWAS Supplementary Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance establishes free, fair and transparent elections, popular participation and democratic principles among the constitutional principles shared by member states. It recognises the right of political parties to operate freely and participate in the electoral process, while guaranteeing the freedom of the opposition.
The protocol states that the preparation and conduct of elections, as well as the announcement of results, should be carried out in a transparent manner. It also provides for the collection of relevant information about contesting candidates and political parties in the period surrounding elections.
The ECOWAS framework also links democracy with transparency, accountability and good governance. Under its protocol, member states are expected to pursue practical measures supporting the rule of law, human rights, justice and good governance, including accountability and transparency.
The protocol does not specifically state that every political alliance agreement must automatically be published. That distinction is important.
But the wider democratic principles are clear: transparency, popular participation, credible elections, political pluralism and accountability are central to the regional framework.
Political parties may therefore ask themselves whether keeping coalition agreements confidential is consistent with the democratic culture they publicly say they want to build.
A Question for Party Members Too
The issue is not only about the relationship between political leaders and voters. It also concerns the relationship between party leaders and their own members.
Political parties depend on ordinary members. Members campaign.
They mobilise communities.
They attend rallies. They defend their parties on radio, television and social media. They raise funds.
They vote in internal processes.
They become candidates.
But in many alliances, ordinary members may not have access to the full agreement negotiated by their leaders. This can create another democratic question:
Should a party member be expected to defend an alliance without being allowed to read the agreement behind it?
Party executives may argue that negotiations require confidentiality.
That is often true. Negotiations may involve private discussions before an agreement is reached. Political parties may need space to bargain.
They may need to discuss difficult issues away from the public. But once an agreement is finalised and signed, the question changes. The agreement is no longer merely a negotiation.
It becomes the document governing the political partnership. And if that partnership is presented to the public as an alternative government, a governing alliance or an electoral coalition, the public interest becomes stronger.
