By Madi Jobarteh
I have known Marr Nyang as a young, hardworking, and highly committed professional with an impressive dedication to transparency, accountability, and good governance. He is among the few young Gambians who started an organisation from virtually nothing and built it into a reputable national and international organisation.
Under his leadership, Gambia Participates has made significant contributions to democratic governance, transparency, and accountability. In February 2026, the organisation won the CSO of the Year Award, among other recognitions. Marr himself has received international recognition for his work in the fight against corruption in Qatar in December 2025. His achievements and leadership have made him an inspiration and role model for me and many young Gambians.
It is precisely against this background that I am deeply disturbed by the revelations concerning his engagement with the Golden Era Party (GEP). Having reviewed the information made public so far by Marr, Neneh Cheyassin Kebé and the media, my conclusion is that Marr made a serious error of judgment by engaging with a political party and politicians in this manner, regardless of whether the engagement was undertaken through a separate private consultancy company and regardless of whether Gambia Participates was directly involved.
The fundamental issue is not simply whether Gambia Participates participated in the particular assignment. The issue is the potential and perceived conflict of interest created by Marr’s simultaneous executive involvement in two entities whose work intersects with the same political actors but serves fundamentally different purposes.
As founder and executive director of Gambia Participates, Marr leads an organisation whose work directly concerns elections, political parties, transparency, and accountability. Gambia Participates conducts election observation, monitors political parties and candidates, undertakes opinion polling, and engages in broader governance and accountability work. Political parties, politicians, public institutions, and public officials are therefore among the legitimate subjects of its scrutiny.
This creates an obvious conflict, or at the very least a serious appearance of conflict, when the same person is also involved at an executive and decision-making level in a private consultancy firm that provides political messaging, strategy, or related services to a political party. Put simply: Marr cannot reasonably occupy both sides of the fence.
On one side is Gambia Participates, whose mandate includes observing elections and monitoring the conduct of political parties and politicians. On the other is Projects and Results Consulting, through which he is involved in providing services to a political party that could itself become a subject of Gambia Participates’ monitoring and scrutiny.
That creates the uncomfortable situation of one individual effectively serving two masters: Gambia Participates on one hand and Projects and Results Consulting on the other, with both potentially engaging with the same political actors from fundamentally different positions.
It is therefore not sufficient to argue that the consultancy is a private company and that Gambia Participates had nothing to do with the particular engagement. The relevant question is not merely whether organisational resources were shared or whether Gambia Participates formally participated. The question is whether Marr’s simultaneous roles create an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest capable of undermining public confidence in the independence and impartiality of Gambia Participates and Marr himself.
For an organisation whose most valuable asset is public trust, perception matters enormously.
Imagine, for example, that Gambia Participates conducts election observation involving the same political party for which Marr, through his private consultancy, has helped develop political messaging or campaign tools. Even if the two entities maintain separate finances, staff and operations, reasonable citizens could legitimately question whether the monitoring organisation is genuinely independent.
That is precisely why individuals occupying leadership positions in civil society organisations must exercise an especially high degree of caution when undertaking outside commercial or political engagements.
I do not believe this controversy necessarily impugns Marr’s entire record or erases the important work he has done. Nor do I believe that every allegation being made against him should automatically be accepted as true. But the judgment involved in accepting such an engagement in the first place was, in my view, seriously flawed. And the consequences extend beyond Marr personally.
The controversy risks undermining the credibility and legitimacy of Gambia Participates, an organisation that has earned considerable public respect. More broadly, it provides ammunition for those seeking to discredit civil society organisations and portray civil society actors as politically compromised or self-serving.
This is particularly dangerous because the independence and credibility of civil society are essential to democratic accountability. Once citizens begin to believe that organisations established to monitor power are themselves working for political interests, the entire accountability ecosystem suffers.
Marr therefore has an important decision to make, and so does the leadership of Gambia Participates. In my view, there are essentially two credible options.
First, Marr should withdraw from or permanently close the consultancy firm’s political work and concentrate exclusively on Gambia Participates and its governance, transparency, and accountability mandate.
Second, if he wishes to continue operating the consultancy firm and providing services to political parties or other actors who fall within the scope of Gambia Participates’ monitoring work, then he should seriously consider vacating his leadership position at Gambia Participates in order to protect the organization’s independence and reputation. Either option taken, he must also face the nation to explain himself.
There may be other ways of managing the conflict, but they would need to be exceptionally robust, transparent, and credible to the public. Ultimately, this is not simply about Marr Nyang. It is about institutional integrity, public trust, and the standards we expect from civil society organisations, advocates and activists that claim to hold power accountable.
Marr has built something valuable. Gambia Participates has earned a reputation that many organisations would take years to establish. That reputation should not be placed at unnecessary risk because of an avoidable conflict of interest.
My position therefore comes not from a desire to diminish Marr or Gambia Participates, but from precisely the opposite concern: that the integrity, credibility, and independence they have worked so hard to build must be protected. The choice of how to resolve this matter is ultimately theirs. But whatever path they choose, it should put institutional integrity and public confidence above personal or commercial interests. Marr Nyang must remember that whatever happens, the Gambia Participates is his bona fide legacy which he must cherish and protect.
‘If the proposed National Research Development and Innovation Council Bill, 2026 seeks to subject research to government authorisation or otherwise restrict what research can be conducted, then it would represent a deeply undemocratic assault on freedom of inquiry, knowledge production, and access to information. This is deeply worrying, but, given the trajectory of recent government initiatives, it is unfortunately not surprising.’