Opinion: "Our land is our story, our identity, the very essence of who we are as Kombonkas." - Dave Manneh

Feedback and Recommendations on the Draft National Land Policy (2026–2035): Addressing Injustices and Advancing Participatory Land Governance

By Dave Manneh - United Kingdom

Reclaiming Heritage: A Decolonial Framework

This opinion piece aims to critically examine the current draft of the National Land Policy (2026 -2035) and propose essential changes as part of the ongoing consultation process. With validation activities continuing throughout April and May 2025, this is a crucial moment to ensure land justice for Kombo. Securing Futures, as land rights activists and members of Kombo's land-owning communities, views this consultation process with a blend of hope and deep apprehension.

"Our land is our story, our identity, the very essence of who we are as Kombonkas."

Imagine a Kombonka elder, Mba Mariama Bojang, who has tilled the same soil her ancestors did for centuries. Now, imagine officials telling her that this land, her family heritage, now belongs to the state. This is the reality for many in Kombo.

Dave Manneh is a UK-based native of Brufut

Like other African communities, the lives of Kombo's inhabitants are inextricably linked to the soil of their ancestors. However, accidents of geography and history—the Atlantic coastline, mild climate, and European colonialism—has cast a unique shadow over this region and its land-owning clans. This confluence of historical factors spurred and continues to spur internal migration to Kombo. Indeed, many Gambians from other regions share six common aspirations: to move to Kombo; to migrate abroad; to send parents on the Hajj; to purchase land in Kombo; to build a home; and finally, to relocate their families from upcountry.

This internal migration has led to whole families and clans abandoning their rural ancestral homes for Kombo. The ramifications of these societal changes have placed immense pressure on Kombo’s limited land resources while simultaneously increasing their value — a situation that made Kombo’s communal lands targets for dispossession through systemic state abuse which facilitates elite capture. The result is the depriving of these Indigenous communities their birth rights.

While these dynamics reflect broader socio-economic trends, the state institutionalised them through legal frameworks that prioritised their control over communal ownership. Among these frameworks, the State Lands Act 1991 stands out as a key catalyst of dispossession. This law formalised the redefinition of Kombo lands as state property. The effect of this law not only disrupted traditional land governance systems but also entrenched inequalities, making the region vulnerable to further exploitation under the guise of development.

It is crucial to recognise that The Gambian government did not initiate the national land policy draft out of a genuine commitment to land equity. Funding conditions laid out by the World Bank funded West Africa Coastal Areas (WACA) Resilience Investment Project compelled the Gambia to initiate this exercise.

While the WACA program targets critical ecological challenges like coastal erosion, flooding, and pollution, it operates within a development framework that has significant land governance implications. We observe a pattern here: the continuous trend where International Development Partners (IDPs) shape national agendas with ill-fitting generalised and formulaic templates.

Scrutinising The State Lands Act 1991: The Critical Turning Point

This legislation, a byproduct of the 1980s Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) represented a significant and deeply damaging shift in post-independence land governance. SAP was a set of economic policies International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank imposed on developing countries as a condition for loans.

More than mere legislation, the State Lands Act inflicted a festering wound on Kombo, targeting its most productive, populous, and industrious areas: North, South, and Central. This disproportionate and selective application constitutes a gross violation of fundamental rights and a blatant disregard for long-established inheritance traditions. Under the Act's provisions, the state explicitly reclassified lands passed down through generations as "state lands," fundamentally transforming communities from rightful owners into precarious tenants holding "deemed leaseholds" granted by the very entity that orchestrated their dispossession.

The consequences have been catastrophic, evidenced by numerous cases. In Brufut and Yundum, the Jammeh regime seized hectares of communal lands and granted them to a private developer, Mustapha Taf Njie. The communities rejected the paltry compensation Taf Njie offered, yet he proceeded with his developments against their wishes.

There is substantial evidence that officials of the ministry and the department of physical planning have been actively engaged in massive corruption and illegality throughout this process. In provable cases, plots of land from areas the state designated for "public purposes"—such as housing estates and associated amenities—have been improperly divvied up amongst state officials, their friends, family, and other connected individuals. This systematic corruption undermines both the stated public interest justification for land seizures and the legitimacy of the entire land governance system.

Demolished property in Salagi

Similarly, across Kombo, the state has seized vast tracts of land, offering compensation which amounts to a tiny fraction of the true value and none in some instances. Sukuta Nema Su, Sukuta Salagi and Brusubi are examples. Even the slightest sign of resistance against this systemic injustice elicits violent intervention by security forces. These security forces typically arrive in full tactical gear reminiscent of preparations for armed conflict rather than civilian engagement. They engage in physical repression, including beatings, arrests, detentions, and demolition of buildings.

A property demolished in Salagi

Even legal challenges have been predictably unsuccessful, as exemplified by the Brufut Manneh clan v Taf Holding (High Court of The Gambia - Civil Suit 44/03). Despite embarking on the legal route, Taf proceeded to construct hundreds of domestic and commercial units in what he calls Brufut Gardens, and the AU Villas. These are lands with an estimated market value of US$12-15 million at today's rate at very conservative estimates and which Njie offered less than US$6,000.

The ongoing demolitions in Sukuta Salagi further illustrate this perpetual injustice, where the state demolishes the houses and properties of the customary landowners.

What is even more disturbing is members of land-owning communities consistently reporting the rejection of their applications for plots on their ancestral lands. Although the state designates these lands for "public purposes"—such as housing estates and associated amenities, ostensibly making every citizen eligible—it routinely rejects applications from Kombo's landowners seeking to build homes for their expanding families. When, compelled by the state's unjust actions, these indigenes rightly build on their land, the inevitable outcome is that state security personnel demolish their buildings.

This is not a series of isolated incidents, but a systematic pattern of dispossession throughout Kombo that favours outsiders over the indigenes. This creates dangerous tensions that threaten social cohesion, could potentially escalate into civil strife if left unaddressed, particularly as communities perceive their very existence as threatened by state-sanctioned dispossession.

While proponents might argue a nationalised land governance framework facilitates developments of new settlements to meet the rapid population growth of Kombo, it is crucial to recognise that these benefits often accrue primarily to new developments, not the dispossessed original communities. To suggest gratitude for incidental benefits from our own dispossession is to rationalise injustice.

Analysing The Draft National Land Policy: Unresolved Concerns

While the current draft policy articulates laudable goals of equitable access and sustainable management, we identify a fundamental concern in its conspicuous silence on the State Lands Act 1991. As the policy undergoes regional and national validation in the coming weeks, we urge policymakers to address this critical gap. Despite acknowledging the need to ''harmonise legal standards of tenure governance'' (Section 9.4), the current draft fails to explicitly address or amend this legalised illegality.

Policies are not neutral instruments; they reflect interests and reveal power dynamics. As Ben Suwareh, a good governance activist, notes, "The omission of the State Lands Act from the new policy effectively perpetuates the injustices it has enabled for decades." This omission effectively legitimises the ongoing elite capture and economic exploitation enabled by the Act. Section 7.4 explicitly allows state entities to continue leasing lands to investors without adequate compensation to customary owners, perpetuating systemic disinheritance.

Deconstructing The Land Reform Narrative: An Urgent Necessity

The dominant narrative often presents land tenure reform as necessary to address insecurities in "Indigenous" systems and promote development. This simplistic narrative obscures the fact that tenure insecurity is a result of capitalist, free-market policies imposed by "International Development Partners." These models, rooted in "modernisation" theory and neoliberal principles, prioritise individualisation and commodification of land. A fundamental clash with customary tenure systems, constituting a form of epistemic violence and delegitimising Indigenous knowledge systems.

A key paradox lies in the policy's treatment of gender. While Section 7.5 aims to protect women's land rights, it overlooks the sophisticated gender-sensitive systems that historically existed. The traditional system provided women with distinct pathways to land ownership: Faaro, Naako and Tandaako. Men, by contrast, had a single path: Kunko.

The imposing of Western models which focus on individualism rather than communalism, has undermined these traditional protections. Both genders have lost land, but women have suffered a double dispossession, losing both land and the cultural frameworks that legitimised claims to land.

The draft policy thus ironically offers to "safeguard" women's rights through the very frameworks that contributed to their erosion. This emphasis on land titling and registration represents a "manufactured crisis", disrupting social contracts and eroding social capital, creating insecurity, and opening avenues for elite land acquisition. This process leads to dispossession, erosion of social cohesion, gender-imbalanced resource access, and ecological unsustainability. The draft policy perpetuates a simplistic "traditional versus modern" narrative, legitimising dispossession.

Proposing Essential Changes: A Path Forward

To correct these injustices and ensure that the policy serves the interests of all Gambians, particularly the dispossessed and the marginalised, key changes are imperative:

- Repeal/amend the State Lands Act 1991: The Gambia must repeal or substantively amend the State Lands Act. These changes should be concrete and extend beyond vague promises of reform in line with the constitution and other best practices.

- Protect Ancestral Claims: The state must establish robust safeguards to protect ancestral claims and communal land rights from expropriation under the guise of "public purpose" or "investment."

- Centre Indigenous Traditions: The policy must move beyond mere recognition of customary systems by centering Indigenous traditions in land governance.

- Impose a Moratorium on New Allocations: The state should impose an immediate moratorium on all further allocations of land designated for "public purposes" until it implements comprehensive reforms. This pause will prevent continuation of corrupt practices while developers devise systemic changes.

- Investigate Past Land Corruption: The policy must acknowledge and address the proven cases where state officials have diverted lands designated for "public purposes" to colleagues, family, friends, and other connected individuals. The state should establish a special investigative unit to review suspicious allocations and document the extent of misappropriation.

- Create Recovery Mechanisms: The government must create legal and administrative pathways to reclaim dispossessed lands and return them to their intended public purpose or to their original communal owners where appropriate.

- Pursue Criminal Accountability: The state should develop specific provisions for legal prosecution of officials involved in land corruption, with appropriate penalties including fines, removal from office, and criminal charges proportionate to the scale of corruption.

- Overhaul Allocation Procedures: The government must redesign the entire process of public land allocation with mandatory transparency requirements, multiple levels of oversight, community involvement, and regular external audits to prevent future corruption.

- Empower Traditional Leaders: The Gambian state should empower traditional leaders as intermediaries in the new land governance system but not co-opt them as arms of state machinery.

- Restructure and Resource Land Administration Departments: The State should equip the Departments of Lands and Physical planning with resources and technology fit for purpose.

- Diversify Communication Strategies: The Ministry of Lands must diversify its communication strategies to ensure that information about the draft policy reaches all Gambians, especially in low-literacy communities.

Specifically, Securing Futures calls for retroactive review of all land transfers made under the Act, with priority given to cases where the landowners rejected the grossly inadequate compensation. Where returning the land is impractical, the state must establish mechanisms to provide mandatory fair market value compensation based on current rather than historical values of the lands. The state must return undeveloped portions of expropriated land to original communal owners and recognise customary ownership alongside formal titles.

In addition, developments on former communal lands must implement community benefit-sharing requirements of at least 25% of profits or reorganise their operations based on co-operative principles. These co-operative models will ensure that affected communities maintain meaningful ownership stakes, participate in decision-making processes, and receive equitable distributions of benefits from developments on their ancestral lands. Such arrangements align better with our traditional communal land governance systems while still accommodating economic development.

Second, the state must establish robust safeguards to protect ancestral claims and communal land rights from expropriation under the guise of "public purpose" or "investment." Free, Prior, and Informed Consent protocols should require substantial community approval for any land transactions affecting communal lands. The state should collaborate with communities to establish land trusts to hold and manage communal lands, while a specialised tribunal for hearing historical land injustice claims is a necessity. An embargo on new leases of communal land pending resolution of historical claims would demonstrate good faith.

Third, the policy must move beyond mere recognition of customary systems and actively centre Indigenous traditions in land governance. This means formally recognising the authority of clan structures in land administration. The state should document and codify our customary laws while maintaining their inherent flexibility. The Gambian state must create a hybrid governance model that integrates traditional authorities with "modern" administrative structures, and it must also respect oral traditions and testimonies as valid evidence of land claims.

Fourth, to address the endemic corruption in land allocation, the state must take immediate and decisive action. An immediate cessation on all further allocations of land designated for "public purposes" is essential until the state implements comprehensive reforms. This pause will create the necessary space for systemic review and restructuring whilst preventing the continuation of harmful practices. Furthermore, land already allocated but not yet developed should be frozen pending proper investigation, particularly in cases where conflicts or disputes have arisen.

Fifth, a thorough investigation into past land corruption must be prioritised. The policy must acknowledge and address the proven cases where state officials have diverted lands designated for "public purposes" to colleagues, family, friends, and other connected individuals. The state should establish a special investigative unit with statutory powers to review suspicious allocations, subpoena documents, and conduct public hearings. This unit must document the full extent of misappropriation, creating a comprehensive record that can inform both restitution efforts and policy reforms.

Sixth, the government must create robust recovery mechanisms to reclaim dispossessed land. It should establish legal and administrative pathways to revert these lands for their intended "public purpose" or return to their original communal owners where appropriate. In cases where development has already occurred, the state should implement benefit-sharing arrangements that ensure affected communities receive meaningful compensation for their losses. Full community participation must be central in negotiating these arrangements rather than imposed through top-down decisions that maintain existing power imbalances.

Seventh, the state must pursue criminal accountability to address past wrongs and deter future corruption. The state should develop specific provisions for legal prosecution of officials involved in land corruption, with appropriate penalties including fines, removal from office, and criminal charges proportionate to the scale of corruption. There should be an extension to statute of limitations for land corruption offences. This is to ensure judicial addressing of historical cases. No official, regardless of rank or political connections, should be immune from this accountability process.

Eighth, the government must completely overhaul allocation procedures for "public purpose" lands. A redesign of the entire process with mandatory transparency requirements, multiple levels of oversight, community involvement, and regular external audits is necessary. All proposed allocations should require public notice periods, community consultations, and independent assessments of environmental and social impacts. Implementing a digital system that tracks allocations, reduces manual interference, and creates immutable records that resist tampering would be useful. The state must codify these reforms in law rather than relying on administrative directives that are easy to reverse.

Ninth, the Gambian state should empower traditional leaders as intermediaries in the new land governance system but not co-opt them as arms of state machinery. They should receive comprehensive training on the new policy and legal frameworks, resources to conduct community education on land rights, formal integration into land administration structures, support to document customary practices, and authority to represent community interests in negotiations with the state and investors.

Tenth, the State should equip the Departments of Lands and Physical planning with resources and technology fit for purpose. This should include modern surveying equipment, digitised record-keeping systems, and professional staff with appropriate training in both technical skills and community engagement approaches.

Finally, the Ministry of Lands must employ diverse communication strategies to ensure that information about the draft policy reaches all Gambians, especially in low-literacy communities. This should include radio and television broadcasts in local languages, regular community meetings with translators and visual aids, illustrated guides explaining land rights, mobile friendly digital content, and targeted outreach sessions for elders, women, and youth.

Editor's note: The opinions expressed here belong to the author and may not reflect the perspectives of Gunjuronline.com. Have an opinion piece you'd like to publish? Email it to editor@gunjuronline.com

Do you have a story or an opinion piece you’d like to share? Get in touch by contacting us at: editor@gunjuronline.com 

Share your views on this article in the comments below.