WHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD DOES AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT RATTLE FRIENDS OF AN EX-JUSTICE MINISTER TO WARRANT A MEDIATION? WAS BA TAMBADOU AT WAR WITH ANYBODY?
By Ebrima Papa Colley (Gambiano) gambiano821@gmail.com
Was Ba Tambadou at any war with anybody for the NHRC and MCG to broker a peace-deal or kick start some sort of "mediation"? We didn't know he had Three Amigos in his closet!
Three Amigos went into Peter’s den on Thursday, May 15th 2025. They were Emmanuel Joof from National Human Rights Commission NHRC, Ababacarr Cham and Emily Touray of Media Commission Gambia. We thank Peter Gomez from the bottom of our heart for extruding these amigos from their cocoons.
- Emmanuel Joof [the first Amigo], why didn’t you recuse yourself from the arbitration between Ba Tambadou and Mustapha K. Darboe when, in your own words, “It’s an open secret that” you and Ba are friends. What kind of fairness should Gambians expect from you in this matter?
- Emmanuel, you also mentioned, “[It] is an open secret that Ba is my friend…the call came from Ba and in the discussion, he mentioned that he has contacted Mr. Touray [the second Amigo] and he wants a meeting to be done and it was in connection with the Republic’s publication,” [referring to Mustapha K. Darboe’s volcanic revelation].
- Where on earth do you see the need for a “mediation” simply because an article was published? The last time we checked, an article isn’t a drone with explosives—nor is it a whistle for a match of punches and fists. So, what exactly warranted a “mediation” or some sort of ceasefire?
- The first Amigo continued, “It is true that on the 5th of May, I did get a call from Aboubacarr Tambadou…aha…and I’ll explain more. I get calls from everybody…” Chei Yallaah! Finally, here’s the answer to the million Dollar question Ba Tambadou evaded the other day. Peter did ask him if he did contact NHRC or MCG at all and he evaded the question.
- So, what do we learn? The whole thing was initiated by Ba to set in motion a strategic damage control. The same Ba Tambadou involved in a diplomatic passport scandal when he was Justice Minister—a clear corruption and abuse of office. He reportedly gave our diplomatic passport to a family member who wasn’t working for The Gambia gov’t.
- The same Ba Tambadou who reportedly took around $200,000 U.S Dollars for the Rohinga case and The Gambia citizens never saw the money.
- Now the same Ba Tambadou is in another fresh scandal of embezzling national wealth and allotting it to cronies, some of whom he later married! Ba low-IQ Tambadou, there is a serious common denominator here! Please, do we need glasses to see the gut-wrenching pattern? Do you see Gambians as stupid, dim-witted folks and only you and your Amigos can think critically?
Please go ahead and sue Mustapha and see! I myself and many other Gambians will foot his legal fees insha Allaah! And one last thing: Good luck with your job seeking! We don’t need to remind the ICJ of any background check, Ba. Here’s a guy whose corruption has denied poor farmers, men, women, children, and the elderly of even a single well-maintained hospital. Gambians have been dying from very preventable homeostatic imbalances.
They share oxygen tubings and concentrators, if any. Their pre-term babies share single incubators! Their hospitals ration gloves! Their electricity supply has been perennially pathetic! They lack blood banks or refrigerators that store them. Most go to bed hungry every night due to severe economic hardship from your government’s economic irresponsibilities, and dare-devil corruption. And here you are, Ba, sending your Three Amigos for some hero halos?
A Flailing Pen and a Failing Premise: Why This ‘Three Amigos’ Article Is Neither Satirical, Serious, Nor Sane
There are moments in public commentary when one expects a piece to at least choose a lane. It could be satire, sober analysis, or a structured editorial. Sadly, this article flounders in the no-man’s land between incoherence and vitriol. It manages neither the intellectual discipline of legal analysis nor the literary flourish of political satire.
This is not journalism. This is not even persuasive opinion writing. It is a haphazard collection of personal rants, grammatical misfires, and ill-formed conspiracy theories presented as investigative commentary.
Journalistic Rigor: Missing in Action
The author claims to deliver a bold exposé but instead offers a heavily opinionated rant without substantiated evidence, proper sourcing, or the basic standards of responsible reporting. What we are given is hearsay, conjecture, and emotionally charged assertions disguised as fact.
Where is the supporting documentation for the alleged misappropriation of $200,000 from the Rohingya case?
Where is the proof that Ba Tambadou initiated a mediation as a form of state capture or undue influence?
Where are the responses or perspectives from those accused—Joof, Cham, and Touray—for balance and fairness?
This article accuses recklessly, without proof, and condemns without due process.
Literary Flare: Not Even a Flicker
If the author intended satire by referencing “Three Amigos” and mocking Ba Tambadou’s alleged misdeeds, then the writing should contain wit, irony, or stylistic discipline. Instead of clever language or biting humor, the reader is given crude lines such as:
“Ba low-IQ Tambadou…”
This is not satire. It is a schoolyard insult. Satire draws blood through finesse. This simply throws stones with clumsy hands.
Worse still are phrases like:
“Do we need glasses to see the gut-wrenching pattern?”
This reads more like pub banter than polished prose. There is no sense of pacing, rhetorical balance, or structure. What remains is a breathless list of grievances pretending to be analysis.
Grammar and Syntax: A Carnival of Errors
The piece suffers from persistent and glaring grammatical mistakes. It is carelessly written, and the lack of editing is painfully obvious.
“Emily Touray” is incorrect. The correct name is Emil Touray, a respected journalist and former GPU President. Errors like this diminish the writer’s credibility.
“Extruding these amigos from their cocoons” is a bizarre and inappropriate choice of words. One suspects the writer meant “drawing out” or “exposing.”
Unnecessary ellipses, random capitalisations like “Chei Yallaah,” and clumsy compound sentences make the piece read like a poorly composed WhatsApp voice note, not a considered editorial.
A competent editor would have flagged these errors in the first paragraph alone.
Legal and Logical Lapses: From Flawed Premise to Flimsier Conclusion
Even the central allegation—that an investigative article prompted a mediation that is unethical or corrupt—is not well developed.
Ba Tambadou, now a private citizen, contacts individuals he knows, one of whom acknowledges their friendship. The contact concerns a published article and results in a discussion. What follows is described as mediation.
Where is the legal violation? Friendship alone is not a disqualification unless it results in obstruction of justice or conflicts of interest. No such consequence is demonstrated here. The NHRC and MCG are not courts. Their engagement, if any, was informal. The author even quotes them admitting the nature of the contact.
The reference to poor healthcare, incubator shortages, and economic hardship is emotionally loaded but logically disconnected. Linking Ba Tambadou’s alleged misdeeds to national infrastructure collapse requires evidence, not outrage.
Conclusion: When Editorial Becomes Editorializing
The most unfortunate part of this article is that it buries an important conversation about institutional independence beneath a chaotic and poorly constructed rant.
If the author truly aims to hold power to account, then the path forward is not slander, exaggeration, or lazy writing. It is clarity. It is logic. It is credible sourcing. Above all, it is respect for the reader’s intelligence.
Until then, this “Three Amigos” article will stand as an example of what happens when emotion overtakes reason, and when poor writing disguises itself as bold journalism