“I only hope that the authorities are aware of it? How can a person change his surname and eventually be in cabinet when both of his parents are noncitizens? Do your proper findings!”
Dr. Alieu Gibba.

In fragile democracies, the most corrosive threats often come not from the loud provocateur in the street, but from the subtle erosion of truth by those who should be guardians of knowledge.

When a university lecturer resorts to insinuations about surnames, parentage, and citizenship—without evidence, without clarity, and without the courage to name the individual he is alluding to—the issue transcends personal opinion. It becomes a matter of public ethics.

A democracy cannot be built on whispers, coded warnings, and identity-based suspicion. It must be anchored in law, facts, and intellectual integrity.

The Constitution of The Gambia does not define citizenship by surname, ethnicity, or the nationality of one’s parents. It defines it by legal criteria. To suggest that a Gambian’s eligibility for public office can be questioned on the basis of a name change or parental origin is not only legally baseless—it is academically irresponsible. It reduces constitutional citizenship to folklore and turns public debate into a playground for prejudice.

Changing a surname is neither illegal nor unusual. People do so for marriage, cultural alignment, family unity, or personal preference. To treat a name change as evidence of wrongdoing is to weaponise identity in a way that undermines national cohesion.

More troubling is the rhetorical tactic of implying that “authorities should be aware” of an unnamed individual’s supposed ineligibility. This is not scholarship. It is fear-mongering by insinuation.

It shifts the burden of proof away from the accuser and invites the public to fill the gaps with suspicion. Such tactics are the hallmark of populism, not academia.

A lecturer has a duty to elevate public understanding, not inflame it. A lecturer has a duty to clarify the law, not distort it. A lecturer has a duty to model intellectual rigor, not indulge in the lazy shortcuts of rumor and xenophobic framing.

The Gambia is a nation shaped by migration, intermarriage, and shared destinies. Our surnames cross borders. Our families cross rivers. Our identities cross centuries. To police belonging through names and parentage is to betray the very history of this land.

Citizenship is a legal status. Eligibility is a constitutional matter. National belonging cannot be reduced to bloodlines. If one wishes to debate citizenship, let us debate the Constitution. If one wishes to critique governance, let us do so with evidence. If one wishes to challenge eligibility, let us cite the law.

But to cast shadows without facts, to stir suspicion without proof, to invoke parentage as a political weapon—this is not patriotism. It is intellectual cowardice dressed as concern.

The Republic deserves better from its scholars. Our students deserve better. Our public discourse deserves better. A lecturer may choose populism, but the rest of us must choose principle.

By Alagi Yorro Jallow