In the last decade, irregular migration, locally called ‘backway’, has led tens of thousands of young Gambians to leave the country for Europe, either in pirogues across the high seas to the Canary Islands or by crossing the Sahara Desert and the Mediterranean Sea. Many got stranded en route, often exploited by smugglers or kidnapped for ransom by criminals. Aided by the UN migration agency, IOM, through support from the European Union, thousands such stranded migrants have returned to The Gambia, primarily from Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Niger.
The reintegration support comes in the form of grants for business start-up activities, alongside services such as vocational training and skill certification and social and psychosocial support.
An investigation by The Republic uncovers that the reintegration scheme, which had assisted 7,618 returnee Gambians by December 2024, has been poorly managed, often subjecting returnees to long months of defeating waiting before they can access support and turning the grants for business start-ups into a ‘cash cow’ for IOM-designated suppliers. Restricted in what businesses they can pursue, the returnees have also been forced into domains they did not desire, undermining the viability of their ventures.
By Mustapha K Darboe and Josef Skrdlik
‘They made me regret coming back’
Demba Jallow*, now 27, left The Gambia in 2021 after spending two years since finishing high school unable to gather money for university tuition, feeling his life was going nowhere. With D3,000 ($42) his friend gave him, he reached Nouakchott, Mauritania, where he found work as a daily labourer on fishing boats. He continued until he earned enough to go to Zouérat in northern Mauritania and pay to be smuggled to Tindouf in Algeria.
On the way, the car broke down and the agent abandoned them in the desert, where he and other migrants were soon intercepted by the Algerian border patrol. Demba was taken to a nearby deportation camp and after a several-day journey on a big truck, he found himself dropped off in the desert on the border of Niger. “The place was so dusty and the wind was blowing. I had a feeling that if I came back to The Gambia, I would be in the same situation,” he said.
In Assamakka, Niger, he paid to be smuggled back to Algeria and with his last money, he eventually reached Zuwara on the Libyan coast. There, he was labouring on construction sites, until, after four months, he gathered 4,000 dinars ($800) for a boat to Lampedusa. Off the coast, Libyan coastal patrol intercepted the boat and he was taken to prison. “They were asking for 50,000 dalasi, but my mother was sick at the time, so I stayed there. With the help of God, after four months, I was chosen to be part of those sent to work,” he said.
After six weeks of slave labour on a construction site in Tripoli, he was freed. Still, he did not give up, continuing to work and paying for three more boat trips.
The last trip felt hopeful, “The boat was very fast. We ran the whole night, the whole day too, but we missed.” They hit a Tunisian island. The Tunisian police beat them and bussed them to the desert on the border with Algeria, where they were beaten again and abandoned without water to their fate.
“When I reached Algeria, I totally gave up but still didn’t want to come back. I thought if I come back, it will be the same situation. Then a friend told me about IOM,” he said. He went to Algiers and signed up for a flight back to The Gambia, thinking IOM would help sponsor his education and he would start afresh.
Upon returning, he was told he was eligible for D107,500 ($1,493) and education expenses would be deducted from the amount. He signed up for an International Relations course at the University of The Gambia and collected the invoice, but IOM said his money would first have to be approved in Algeria. No one reportedly answered his calls until the enrollment deadline passed.
Eventually, he was called in to choose his business. “They first listed businesses that were not allowed – taxi, opening a shop, food business. They named so many things, until we asked, we were so curious, what can you offer? That is why most of us took sewing machines.”
Sewing machines are still better than nothing, he thought. He came back from Algeria penniless and did not even have a place to stay, having to turn to friends for support, “I said okay, if I get these machines, maybe I can start something.”
‘Long months of unexplained waiting’
In early December, a reporter from The Republic boarded a taxi with a returnee threatening to arson the IOM Gambia office. This triggered The Republic’s interest in the story. Such sentiments are not rare among returnees. In 2017, a group of angry returnees threatened violence at the IOM office before the police intervened to calm the situation.
The returnee we can only identify as Ebrima Susso* is a member of a WhatsApp chat group of aggrieved returnees who believe IOM has a very slow response time and when they do respond, their services are barely satisfactory. Ensa Jobe* came back from Tunisia in June but has not received his items yet, “I always go to the office to complain but nothing happens.”
“Any time you go to their office, they bring different stories that you don’t understand,” said Swandi Touray*, who has been waiting since his return from Niger in August 2024.
Mustapha Janneh*, who returned from Algeria in August, is also waiting. “These people keep doing bad things to us. They do it because we have no power,” he said.
Uthman Hydara*, a returnee from Algeria, said IOM processed his payment only after he threatened to use violence. “We told them if you don’t give us our money, we will destroy your office,” said Hydara.
Demba Jallow* has the same story. He was sent to a shop to collect an invoice for the machines. The shopkeeper sent it to IOM and Demba was told to wait for a call to collect his items.
Three months later, IOM told him they could not find the invoice and he was sent to the shopkeeper again. “I say okay and think, maybe they don’t value us, because they think we just got up and took this backway. If we had the same opportunity as them, we would never go,” he said.
As of January 2025, more than five months after he arrived, IOM still has not processed his invoice. He said IOM does not pick up his calls and when he goes to their office, they try to get rid of him, “Last time they told us, are we the ones who asked you to take this way? They want you to be begging them. Sometimes the security takes us out by force.”
Seeing himself in exactly the same situation as four years ago when he left The Gambia, he said, “They made me regret coming back. If I died there, it would be better than this.”
In response to the allegations of maltreatment of migrants by IOM staff, IOM said it takes “such allegations seriously and has strict due diligence processes in place”, adding that the staff are “trained professionals who adhere to established principles and standards”.
It said that delays may occur due to factors such as “organisation of training sessions, ID issuance, decision-making on business plans and supply chain logistics”, adding that it “continuously works to mitigate these challenges and ensure timely, effective assistance”.
‘Their way or the highway’
The EU, aiming to mitigate the Mediterranean migration crisis, has provided funds for voluntary returns and economic and social reintegration of returnees. The funds have been distributed under two programmes implemented by IOM – Joint Initiative for Migrant Protection and Reintegration in Africa, operational from December 2016 to February 2023, and Migrant Protection, Return and Reintegration Programme for Sub-Saharan Africa, active since August 2022.
The reintegration support comes in the form of grants for business start-up activities, alongside services such as vocational training and skill certification and social and psychosocial support.
This investigation which looks into the story of over 40 recently reintegrated returnees has found that even the lucky ones who eventually receive their supplies appear to be unable to fully benefit from the scheme. The first issue arises from the limited freedom returnees have in choosing businesses they are to pursue, which pushes many into domains they do not desire to enter.
Essa Drammeh*, a returnee from Libya, wanted to open a food commodity shop because he used to work in one before taking the backway. IOM reportedly told him such a business was not on the list. From the few options available, he eventually went for poultry, although he had no experience in poultry farming.
Muhammed Dibba*, a returnee from Niger, who used to work as a driver before leaving, was asked to choose between tailoring and animal husbandry, neither of which he was familiar with, “They told me driving was not an occupation, but how can you help me if you don’t want to accept my idea?”
Khalilu Jallow*, a returnee from Tunisia, who was contemplating opening a shop, was told to do animal husbandry, which he knew nothing about, “They said no, you can only take cows.” Out of fear of losing his money, he accepted, “If you don’t like what they choose, your money stays there.”
Khalilu Sambou*, a returnee from Niger, wanted to pursue poultry farming, as he already had a small poultry farm at home, but was, intriguingly, assigned to fish vending. Some, like Omar Kanteh*, who was allocated a collection of arbitrarily selected plumbing equipment, are neither able to sell their supplies, nor turn them into an operating business. “What is this? I cannot even understand. Why are they doing this to us? The money I spent on this journey is too much.”
When contacted, IOM claimed that returnees “retain ownership of their reintegration process” and that reintegration plans are “developed in coordination with the returnee, tailored to their specific needs, skills and aspirations.”
‘Profiteering’
After the businesses are assigned, returnees are sent to designated shops to collect their receipts, adding up to different amounts they are allocated by IOM, ranging from D59,000 ($819) to D107,500 ($1,491). The receipts are then sent to IOM for processing and once processed, the supplies can be retrieved. According to returnees, receiving cash is not allowed, nor is obtaining the items from alternative suppliers.
The Republic has found that most of the designated suppliers are neither established players in their respective domains nor do they offer competitive prices. In most cases, they buy from other wholesalers.
Kemo Conteh*, a returnee from Tunisia, was assigned to animal husbandry and sent to arrange his supplies with Buba Korta in Brikama. Korta issued a receipt adding up to his allocation of D88,300 ($1,226), which was to include seven female sheep for 7,000 ($97), four male sheep for D8,000 ($111), transport for D4,000 ($55) and medicine and feeds for the remaining D3,300 ($46).
When his receipt was processed, Korta took him all the way to Basse, where he was to select his sheep at a trade fair locally known as ‘lumo’. Kemo recounted that the most expensive sheep there was for D5,000 ($69) and when he told Korta he wanted that one, Korta replied, “Your money cannot buy this.” Korta ended up buying one sheep for D5,000 and the rest for D4,000 ($55) and D4,500 ($62). The transport back to Brikama where Kemo lives was only D150 ($2) for one sheep, D1,650 ($23) in total, according to the driver he consulted. The sheep were so weak that three died a couple of days later.
Khalilu Jallow*, based in Siffoe, had the same experience. His receipt, totalling D76,420 ($1,060), included two bulls each for D30,000 ($416), female sheep for D8,000 ($111), a small goat for D4,420 ($61) and transport for D4,000 ($55.51). When they got to the market, Korta allegedly bargained for the cheapest bulls available, frail and undernourished animals, and eventually got them for D20,000 ($277) and D22,000 ($305), with the sheep and the goat bought for D4,000 ($55) and D3,500 ($48.57) respectively. Intriguingly, the transport to Siffoe was still invoiced for D4,000 ($55), although the cattle was bought in Brikama.
In December, The Republic visited Korta at the Brikama livestock market where he is popularly known as the IOM supplier. Two interviewees told us he sells goats there. He did not deny claims he bought cheaper livestock to make a profit from the money allocated to returnees. “We are businesspeople, we need to have profit,” he said, adding that IOM does not pay him directly, so the only way he makes money is from returnees’ allocations. Only in 2024, Korta was to supply over 200 returnees.
Lamin Bojang, a fish dealer from Tanji who was to supply over 50 returnees in 2024 for fish vending businesses, admitted to the same practices. His prices for the fish are set in advance with IOM and when he buys at the right time, he can earn solid profit margins. For example, a crate of bonga can be bought for D1,000 ($13) or even as low as D600 ($8) when there is abundance, while the set price is D1,500 ($21).
Sulayman Secka, a poultry importer who supplies returnees with chicks, admitted to his customers that he sells broilers for D75 ($1.04) – in itself above the regular market price of D73 ($1.01) – but charges IOM D80 ($1.12). The Republic confirmed that the feeds, invoiced to returnees for D2,750 ($38), are acquired from an intermediary in Serekunda for D2,400 ($33). For illustration, a supply to a returnee can include up to 18 bags of feed, generating Secka a profit of D6,300 ($87) on feed alone. If sold at the regular market price, the returnee could get at least 79 more broilers. Secka’s price for delivery of chickens and feed, which he reportedly sometimes does using his own vehicle, is a flat D6,000 ($83) for any range – be it a kilometre or 20 kilometres – within the Greater Banjul Area.
IOM claims it does not tolerate such practices and while it cannot confirm their existence, strict monitoring mechanisms are in place to prevent and address misconduct. The choice of the suppliers raises questions about how they were selected. Neither Secka, Korta nor Bojang are major players in the market. Habib Ceesay, who manages a small general supplies shop in Serekunda, somehow supplies IOM with items ranging from sewing machines to fridges and motorbikes. IOM said that it “adheres to strict procurement policies that include market assessments and competitive tendering, ensuring that suppliers meet programmatic and ethical standards”. However, the interviewed suppliers said there was no tender and IOM just contacted them with the offer.
‘Cashing in on frustration’
Faced with businesses they did not want to pursue and overpriced supplies, many returnees admitted to making arrangements with the suppliers to receive cash in exchange for a cut of the money allocated to them by IOM. This is reportedly facilitated through the issuance of fake receipts, in violation of IOM’s procurement rules.
Alieu Bojang*, a returnee from Algeria, was assigned for tailoring, despite having no knowledge of the trade. From his allocated D107,500 ($1,491), he allegedly received D80,000 ($1,110) in cash from Habib Ceesay. Ceesay, keeping the remaining D27,500 ($381), was to issue a fake receipt and briefly remove the machines from his shop to take a picture of Alieu with them.
Sainey Ndure*, a returnee from Tunisia, was allocated D76,935 ($1,067) for sewing machines, from which Ceesay allegedly cut D10,000 ($138).
Ceesay admitted to giving returnees cash, claiming that he does not cut more than the profit he would make if the transactions were realised. “I calculate the amount they are supposed to take, calculate my profit from it and take that. I don’t ask anyone to give me money and I make clear to them my profit share in a machine,” he argued. Such techniques allow the suppliers to keep the unsold goods, pocket their ‘profit’ and sell them again for another round of profit.
The Republic observed no signs of returnees wasting the cash obtained. On the contrary, some used it as an opportunity to invest in the business they had originally intended to pursue.
For example, Essa Touray*, who was arbitrarily assigned to a fish vending business, ended up taking D68,000 ($944) in cash from Lamin Bojang in exchange for a cut of D8,420. Essa invested part of the money in his poultry farm and saved the rest.
Nfally Manneh*, who Bojang himself admitted to giving cash while deducting D7,000 ($97) from it, also used his money to open a small corner shop. Others, unable to arrange cash and having no use for the items, ended up selling them, often to invest in other businesses.
Muhammed Ceesay*, a professional driver, sold his cows, invoiced at D76,000 ($1,055), for D62,000 ($860) to buy a car that IOM refused to sponsor. Abdou Jallow*, a returnee from Tunisia, sold his sewing machines from Ceesay, invoiced at D76,000 ($1,054), for D60,000 ($833) and opened a barber shop.
In response to the allegations of such practices by the suppliers, IOM said it “cannot confirm the existence of such a scheme. IOM has strict procurement policies and does not tolerate such practices. Any reports of misconduct are investigated and corrective measures are taken.”
Many others interviewed by The Republic are still struggling to make their way through the businesses – unexcited about pursuing ventures they feel were chosen for them by IOM and lacking the required training.
After returnees are repatriated, IOM holds a several-day entrepreneurship training for them – sometimes implemented by the National Enterprise Development Initiative. The training, however, does not introduce the migrants to specialised areas they come to invest in.
Essa Sanneh* exemplifies the consequences of this shortcoming. Within a few weeks of receiving his supplies in November 2024, Essa lost 45 chicks. It was only three weeks into his poultry farming that he realised he may have been overfeeding them. In January 2025, while selling the 255 left, his feed – 18 bags supplied along with the chicks – was long finished and Essa was buying two bags every month to feed his chickens. With a wholesale price of D250 ($3.47) each and a retail price of D300 ($4.16), he is expecting his total revenue at D50,000 ($693) – or just about 50% of his total investment. “I will not be able to recover the investment,” said Drammeh whose total allocation was D101,000 ($1402).
Both Buba Korta and Sulayman Secka – IOM-designated suppliers – observe that returnees who collect their livestock and poultry products from them are without elementary knowledge of how to handle animals or poultry. “People who choose poultry should understand the basics of poultry management,” said Sulayman Secka, one of the IOM suppliers. “About 75% of the people I supplied have no clue about poultry,” he added.
Khalilu Jallow*, who simply let his bulls graze around his family’s compound in Siffoe, said he had no idea what to do with them. Kemo Conteh* left his sheep with his uncle but expressed a desire to sell them as soon as possible, fearing more of them would die.
*We have changed the returnees’ names to protect their identity.
Be our accomplice! We rely on donor funding and donation from individuals to support our investigations. Click donate to support our work!
