The Central Bank of The Gambia (CBG) has ordered commercial banks to replace non-Gambian employees who are not covered by approved expatriate quotas, a move that has sparked criticism over what some observers see as a retreat from West Africa’s free-movement ideals.
The regulator has given banks until 31 December, 2026 to replace the affected workers with qualified Gambian nationals.
The order covers all commercial banks operating in the country, including Nigerian-owned lenders such as Access Bank, FirstBank, Guaranty Trust Bank and Zenith Bank, alongside other regional institutions including Ecobank.
The Central Bank of The Gambia said the decision followed an industry-wide review which found a “relatively high number” of non-Gambian employees working in banks in addition to workers formally recognised as expatriates.
According to the regulator, the practice is inconsistent with The Gambia’s Labour Act 2023 and Guideline 9 governing expatriate employment in the banking industry.
The banks have been directed to identify qualified Gambians who can take over the affected positions, establish succession plans and transfer the necessary skills and institutional knowledge.
The CBG also instructed banks to ensure that the transition does not disrupt banking operations.
However, the directive has drawn criticism from various corners. Gambian commentator, Alpha Bah, questioned the logic of African countries demanding greater freedom of movement for Africans abroad while restricting African workers within the continent.
Bah argued that the treatment of African migrants should be judged by the same principle whether the restriction comes from a Western country or an African government.
Similarly, a Nigeria-based financial analyst and economist, Chukwunonso Ihuoma, asked, “Does The Gambia have enough qualified local talent to replace the affected workers without reducing banks’ efficiency?”
He argued that if qualified local replacements are insufficient, a rushed localisation process can raise costs, disrupt banking operations and weaken regional financial integration.
“This kind of order can raise banks’ transition costs. Clearly, replacing experienced employees within a short period of time requires recruitment, training, compensation changes and knowledge transfer programmes. Those costs may outweigh any savings from reducing expatriate employment,” he said.
An emerging markets analyst, Ike Ibeabuchi, also lampooned the order, saying that loss of specialised expertise may affect efficiency,
He stressed that banking functions such as treasury, cybersecurity, risk management, technology and compliance require specialised experience.
“If qualified local replacements are unavailable, forcing rapid replacement may weaken operational capacity,” he said.
He noted that such an order could disrupt regional banking models, stating that Nigerian banks and other pan-African lenders commonly move experienced employees between subsidiaries.
“Restricting that flexibility could make regional operations more expensive and less efficient,” he said.
“It could increase recruitment costs. If several banks compete for the same pool of qualified Gambian professionals, salaries for scarce skills could rise. That could offset some of the expected savings from localisation,” he argued.
“Again, if multinational and regional banks perceive employment rules as unpredictable or excessively restrictive, they may factor that regulatory risk into future investment and expansion decisions.”
