The assurance by Inspector General of Police Seedy Muctarr Touray that crime is on the decline, including a reported 7.29 percent reduction in the first quarter of 2026, sits uneasily alongside growing public anxiety over a spate of violent killings that continue to claim lives across the country. In moments like these, official statistics—however carefully compiled—risk sounding detached from the lived reality of citizens.
The core responsibility of the state is the protection of life and property. When murders occur repeatedly in public spaces, private homes, entertainment venues and communities, the question is no longer about percentage reductions in crime reports, but about the capacity of the state to prevent citizens from dying violently in the first place.
The IGP’s remarks that the police “cannot be everywhere” and that domestic crimes such as stabbings in bars, nightclubs and private premises are difficult to prevent may be operationally true, but they also underline a deeper governance concern: the limits of a reactive security system. Arrests after killings, while necessary, do not restore public confidence unless matched by visible prevention, deterrence and accountability failures addressed in real time.
It is not enough to reassure the public that alleged perpetrators have been arrested and will face court proceedings. Families of victims are left with irreversible loss, and communities are left questioning whether the state is adequately present where it matters most. In such a context, reassurance without detailed transparency risks sounding hollow.
Crucially, if crime is indeed decreasing, the police leadership must go beyond general statements and present clearer breakdowns of the figures. Which categories of crime are falling? Are violent crimes, particularly homicide and aggravated assault, also declining, or are they increasing while other categories mask the trend? What regions are most affected? Without this level of specificity, broad claims of improvement do little to address public concern.
The challenge is not only enforcement but credibility. Public trust is strengthened when security institutions communicate with precision, not generalities. Citizens deserve to see the data that underpins official claims, especially when those claims are contradicted by visible incidents that dominate public discourse.
At the same time, the suggestion that business owners should screen patrons and take greater responsibility for preventing violent incidents raises an uncomfortable policy gap. While community participation is essential, it cannot substitute for a fully resourced, strategically deployed, and intelligence-driven police service. The state cannot outsource its core duty of protection to private actors and informal arrangements.
The recurrence of fatal incidents also points to deeper social and institutional weaknesses: inadequate deterrence, weak control of weapons in circulation, limited preventive policing, and insufficient early intervention mechanisms in high-risk environments. These are structural issues that require more than routine appeals for cooperation.
The Gambia’s reputation as a peaceful country remains an important national asset, but it must be defended with more than comparative rankings or general assurances. Peace is measured not by how a country is viewed externally, but by whether its citizens can safely navigate everyday life without fear of sudden violence.
Ultimately, the issue is not whether crime has statistically decreased. It is whether the state is succeeding in its most fundamental obligation: ensuring that Gambians are protected from preventable violence. Until that question is convincingly answered—with transparent data, effective prevention strategies, and visible results—public concern is unlikely to ease.
About the Author
