Something is brewing in The Gambia, our fellow West African country. Ordinarily, it looks like a simple, routine banking regulation exercise which should not worry any observer, but I fear there may be more to it — and Nigerians may be at the receiving end yet again. I hope I am proved wrong at the end of the day, but I want to raise my voice and draw the attention of the Nigerian authorities to it before whispers turn into shouts and push comes to shove. We must remember that for years, Nigerian immigrants suffered resentment in South Africa until the xenophobic attacks exploded. Also, Ghana has been hurting the interests of Nigerian businesses while, at the same time, smiling with us.
On September 16, 2026, the Central Bank of The Gambia (CBG) sent a letter titled “Directive on the Recruitment of Non-Gambian Staff” to the MDs of all banks. It was signed by the second deputy governor, Dr Paul J. Mendy, who, I understand, was trained by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). It followed a meeting with bank chiefs on August 27, 2026, which, I heard, ended abruptly and resulted in the directive. The CBG, in its directive, said its industry study found that banks employ “a relatively high number of non-Gambians… in addition to recognised expatriate staff”. It said this breaches the Labour Act 2023 and Guideline 9 of its Management and Technical Services Agreement Guidelines.
All banks are to replace their existing non-Gambian staff with “suitably qualified Gambian nationals”. The deadline is December 31, 2026 — about 15 weeks after the letter was issued. This has been well reported. The directive is addressed to all lenders, but Nigerian banks have a large share of the Gambian market and may be disproportionately affected. So you know, there are 11 banks in The Gambia and four are subsidiaries of Nigerian banking groups: Access Bank, FirstBank, Guaranty Trust Bank and one other. Two of them are among their biggest banks. The CBN has now written to the Nigerian parent banks asking for “a detailed action plan and timeline for achieving compliance”.
May I, at this point, declare that I do not have anything against any country wanting to empower its citizens with skills or encourage transfer of knowledge. That is a natural progression for any country that wants to develop. The problem is when the rules of engagement seem to have been subverted and unilaterally torn to pieces, leading to suspicion of a hidden motive. For example, the CBG directive said it relied on Guideline 9 it issued in May 2011. I have read the guidelines again and again. It deals only with the composition of boards and senior management. It says a majority of board members must be Gambians or foreigners legally resident in The Gambia. Fair enough.
“Senior managers” are the MD, executive director, general manager, financial controller, company secretary or anyone in a “position of influence”. Expatriates among them are limited to three, unless the bank gets a dispensation and has a plan to train local successors. Guideline 9 does not appear to regulate non-Gambian employees generally. The guidelines also let parent banks second staff and top up their pay. On the face of it, therefore, the CBG appears to be relying on Guideline 9 for a directive considerably broader than the guideline itself. How can the CBG quote its own guidelines out of context? This is not about illegal immigration, otherwise I wouldn’t be commenting at all.
More worrisome is the questionable application of the Labour Act 2023 by the CBG. Agreed, Part V does give The Gambia a legal basis to limit foreign workers. We have a similar law in Nigeria. Employers need an “expatriate quota” clearance, with fines of at least D500,000 (about $6,800) for not having one. Every expatriate must be paired with a Gambian understudy. No quota is granted where the skills are available locally. This is understandable. The Act defines an “expatriate” as a non-Gambian that possesses skills that “are rarely available in The Gambia”. However, it does not order the removal of all foreign staff by a fixed date, as the central bank is set to do with this directive.
Section 177, contained in Part XIX of the Act, is where the directive is weakest. Section 177(1)(b) requires the minister, labour officers and the industrial tribunal to “guarantee equal opportunity and treatment for a person who is a migrant employee… lawfully within The Gambia.” Indeed, Section 177(3) expressly prohibits discrimination on grounds of nationality in matters including termination of employment. Section 177(7) puts the burden of proof on the employer. Section 177(6) makes breach a criminal offence. Section 177(4)(c) says it is not discrimination to “employ a citizen in accordance with the national employment policy”, but that clause covers hiring citizens.
Furthermore, it does not clearly cover dismissing lawfully employed foreigners because of their nationality. The glaring implication of this is that banks could be caught between a regulator ordering the dismissals and a labour law that may make those dismissals unlawful. Although the stated concern involves foreign employees beyond recognised expatriate arrangements, the CBG instruction refers broadly to replacing “existing non-Gambian staff”. It does not expressly preserve approved expatriate positions or specify exemptions. Does the CBG intend to enforce existing quotas or require a substantially broader removal of foreign employees? This is looking like a blank cheque.
There is a reason I am raising this issue. This is how anti-foreigner sentiments start. What looks like an innocuous directive may actually prepare the ground for hostility towards foreigners, whether or not they are legally in The Gambia. Also, it is banking today; it can be replicated in other sectors tomorrow. Most disturbingly, this may encourage copycat policies by other countries. It doesn’t look harmful initially until unintended consequences set in. Everything must be done with a good motive and within the law. If any Nigerian-owned bank violates the rules and regulations, the offender must face the regulatory sanctions. No bank is above the law, whether owned by Nigerians or Gambians.
But these are the issues. One, legal inconsistency. The directive applies to all non-Gambian staff, while the guideline it cites deals only with senior management. It also seems to conflict with Section 177’s protection of lawful migrant workers. Two, regional obligations. Nigeria and The Gambia belong to ECOWAS, whose free-movement regime recognises the rights of citizens to reside and seek employment in other member states, subject to national laws and regional rules. Three, precedent. Ghana’s restrictions on foreign retail traders and the store closures that followed, and the repeated anti-foreigner violence in South Africa, show how economic nationalism can harden into policy.
Nigeria must, therefore, raise the matter diplomatically. The CBN should engage the CBG directly. Nigeria should coordinate regulatory and diplomatic engagement, request the underlying study and precise legal basis, establish how many Nigerians are affected, and seek protection for lawful employment and approved expatriate positions. The Gambia is entitled to set its labour policy, even at a cost to itself. But it must do so within its own laws and its regional commitments, and Nigeria must protect its own interests. May The Gambia not be another country where we have invested so much financially, technically and politically only for us to be rewarded with passive aggression. Amen.
AND FOUR OTHER THINGS…
STRAIT OF PAINS
With US President Donald Trump sucking the whole world into the stress of his unnecessary war with Iran, energy prices are rising. There are complaints all over the world as oil prices keep spiking as a result of the disruption in the Strait of Hormuz which has affected the global economy. From the US to Europe, from Ghana to Nigeria, citizens are crying as pump prices rise, worsening the cost of living crisis. With elections approaching in Nigeria, the situation has encouraged campaign promises of restoring petrol subsidy, which many Nigerians understandably find attractive. I honestly don’t know the solution to the soaring prices, but there just has to be some succour somewhere. Harsh.
PILOT SCHEME
It used to be that terrorists would break into the cockpit of an aircraft, hold the pilots hostage and hijack the flight. The 9/11 hijackers took a step further by flying the planes into buildings. Strict measures were introduced to prevent sharp objects on board and restrict access to the cockpit. But what happens if a pilot is a hijacker? Last Wednesday, on a Flydubai flight from the UAE to Israel, the co-pilot reportedly stabbed the captain with an emergency axe, took control of the flight, and the aircraft plunged. A bloodied Smit Machchhar, the captain, said he quickly opened the door and called for help. Two off-duty pilots took charge and landed the aircraft safely in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia. Scary.
BOLA OR TINUBU?
This is an election season and I am aware that whatever I write will be interpreted one way or the other, but it still won’t stop me from saying it is out of place for Alhaji Atiku Abubakar to keep calling the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by first name. It is contemptuous, in my opinion. In 1999, Atiku specifically requested that we call him by his first name when he reversed the order of his name from “Abubakar Atiku” to “Atiku Abubakar”. That is his choice. But we have to respect the office of the president. It is not about whether or not we like the person. You don’t have to call him “his excellency”, but addressing him by first name in official communications is ungentlemanly. Low.
NO COMMENT
In 1999, when Chief Olusegun Obasanjo and Chief Olu Falae went head-to-head in the presidential race, northerners devised a way of northernising their names during the campaign in their region. Olusegun Obasanjo became “Baba Sirajo” while Olu Falae was rendered as “Auwalu Falalu”. Dr Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, the former governor of Kano state and former APC national chairman, has come up with a similar device for 2027. Addressing APC supporters in Hausa, he said Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu was from Kano, going on to northernise his Yoruba name. He said: “The ‘Asiwaju’ means ‘Ashiru’, ‘Bola’ is ‘Bala’, ‘Ahmed’ is ‘Ahmadu’, and ‘Tinubu’ means ‘Tanimu’.” Hahahaha…