Disturbing signals from The Gambia

by Simon Kọ́láwọlé,

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.

READ MORE AT THE CABLE.