The State, through the Solicitor General and Legal Secretary, has filed an objection in the ongoing civil suit brought by Modou Ceesay, the former Auditor General, before the Supreme Court. The objection seeks to have the court strike out the reply filed by Modou Ceesay to the defendants’ statement of the case.
The lawsuit is against the Attorney General, the Inspector General of Police, and Cherno Alieu Sowe as the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants, respectively, challenging the decision of his forced removal from his office as the Auditor General.
The 1st defendant (Attorney General) and 2nd defendants (Inspector General of Police) have filed a “Brief of Argument on Notice of Objection” dated 12th November 2025, challenging Modou Ceesay’s (Plaintiff) “Reply To Defendants’ Statement of Case,” requesting that certain parts, or the entirety, of the reply be struck out.
State notice of objection is centred on four main grounds, arguing that the Plaintiff’s reply is procedurally flawed and substantively deficient:
State through Solicitor General and Legal Secretary, asserts that there is no specific provision in the Supreme Court Rules for the filing of a Reply to a Defendant’s Statement of Case. He argues that the document is unnecessary and introduces new issues that are not relevant to the constitutional interpretation at the heart of the suit.
Solicitor General contends that the Reply To Defendants’ Statement of Case is incompetent because the process was not verified by an affidavit as required by Rules 46(2)(a) and 46(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules, which govern all statements of cases filed in the court. He added that an unverified document cannot be used as evidence at trial or as part of a statement of case.
The Solicitor General further argues that the Reply introduces new issues and references annexures (such as the audit report), which are not necessary for the determination of the suit, thereby complicating the legal matter.
The Solicitor General stated that there are unclear and irrelevant points in the reply at Paragraph 19 of the Reply, which he indicates is almost two pages long, describing it as unclear, irrelevant, and difficult to respond to. He submits that the paragraph ought to be struck out.
In his submission, the Solicitor General requested the court to determine whether the “Reply to the Defendants’ Statement of Case” should be struck out entirely for non-compliance with the Supreme Court Rules.
Alternatively, the 1st and 2nd Defendants prayed for the court to order that the document be struck out, or, if only Paragraph 19 is ordered to be amended, that they be granted leave to file a Rejoinder in response to the amended statement.
By Kexx Sanneh
