Part II

Fatoumatta: At times in a nation’s political life, a single casually delivered claim demands more than a passing reaction. It demands civic scrutiny.

It demands historical clarity. It demands that we return to the archive and ask: What actually happened? Ousainou Darboe’s recent assertion on Hilltop Radio that he “never lost an election” is one such moment.

The claim itself matters less than what it reveals about the fragile relationship between political memory and democratic trust.

In the days after my initial commentary, a reader, Nakulang Ceesay, reached out from his personal archives with a document that deserves a place on the public record. It is a GRTS news dispatch dated 20 October 2001, reporting that Darboe — then the presidential candidate of the UDP‑led coalition — had formally conceded defeat to Yahya Jammeh.

The report describes Darboe speaking to journalists at his Kairaba Avenue residence and confirming that he had called Jammeh to congratulate him. It quotes him calling the verdict “a victory for the Gambian people, for democracy and the rule of law,” and urging his supporters to join in consolidating national development. The same dispatch notes that Sheriff Mustapha Dibba also conceded defeat, describing the election as free and fair.

This is not partisan recollection. It is not political gossip. It is archival fact, preserved in the national broadcaster’s own reportage. And it sits in direct tension with Darboe’s recent claim that he “never lost an election.” The contradiction is not trivial.

It speaks to a deeper tension in Gambian political culture—how narratives are reshaped, softened, or hardened to meet the demands of the moment. Here are the news items Mr. Nakulang Ceesay shared from “Gambia Radio & TV News” in Banjul, dated October 20, 2001.
“The UDP-led coalition’s presidential candidate, Lawyer Ousainou Darboe, has conceded defeat and congratulated President Jammeh on his victory.

Speaking to Journalists at his Kairaba Avenue residence, Mr Darboe said he had spoken to the President by telephone. He also told reporters that it is time Gambians move ahead and develop our peace-loving nation. Mr Darboe said the verdict was not only a victory for President Jammeh but also for the Gambian people, democracy, and the rule of law.

He urged Gambians and his supporters to join efforts to consolidate the Gambia’s development process. The NCP Presidential candidate Sheriff Mustapha Dibba also telephoned the President to concede defeat and told reporters the elections were free and fair.”

This archival record clearly clashes with Darboe’s recent statement that he “never lost an election.” The discrepancy highlights how vital it is to maintain archival integrity in protecting democratic history. Political stories should always be grounded in verified facts to uphold trust in institutions.

Political memory is never neutral. People curate it, negotiate it, and sometimes weaponize it. But democracy cannot survive on curated memory. It survives on accurate memory — on citizens who insist that political narratives align with documented truth.

When a public figure revises their own electoral history, pointing out the discrepancy is not hostility; it is civic duty. It is the work of citizens who refuse to let convenience overwrite the archive.

Darboe’s 2001 concession does not diminish his long career. It does not erase his contributions to opposition politics. It does not invalidate his struggles under authoritarian rule. What it does is restore the truth of one moment — a moment when he accepted defeat, congratulated his opponent, and framed the election as democratic continuity. That moment is part of the national record. It cannot be wished away.

The politics of “never losing” is not unique to Darboe. It is a familiar temptation in many democracies, especially in societies emerging from authoritarian rule. Leaders often reshape their past to strengthen their present. But democracy’s burden is that truth must outlive convenience. And the burden of civic writing, the burden of commentary, is to ensure that truth remains anchored in evidence.

Nakulang Ceesay’s archival intervention strengthens that burden. It reminds us that democracy’s work is collective. It is not only politicians’ responsibility, but citizens’, to preserve documents, recall events, and insist that the public record remain intact. In a political culture where memory is often contested, such interventions matter.

As Gambians continue to debate the meaning of opposition politics, democratic resilience, and the legacy of the Jammeh era, this small but significant document should be part of the national conversation. It does not attack Darboe. It simply restores the truth of one moment, a moment that belongs not to any party, but to the Gambian people.

Democracy rests on ballots, collective memory, and institutional trust. Trust cannot survive if memory drifts untethered from fact. The politics of never losing may be tempting, but the politics of truth sustain a nation.

Legacy Builders for Justice affirms that democratic accountability requires accurate historical record‑keeping. The 2001 concession is part of the national archive and must be recognized in any public discussion of electoral history.

By Alagi Yorro Jallow