Modou Ceesay has replied to the state notice of objection to his statement of reply dated 10th November 2025. The state Notice of Objection dated 12 November 2025, seeks to strike out the Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants’ Statement of Case dated 10 November 2025.
The constitutional battle between former Auditor General Modou Ceesay and the State (Attorney General, Inspector General of Police and Cherno Amadou Sowe) intensified with the parties clashing over court procedure. Modou Ceesay is challenging his forced removal from office, invoking the Original Jurisdiction sections of the 1997 Constitution and the National Audit Office Act, 2015, against the Attorney General, the Inspector General of Police (IGP), and Cherno Amadou Sowe.
The recent battle centres on a move by the State to strike out a reply filed by the Plaintiff. Modou Ceesay has replied to the State’s Notice of Objection to his Statement of Reply dated 10th November 2025. The State’s Notice of Objection, dated 12 November 2025, seeks to strike out the Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants’ Statement of Case.
In the Plaintiff’s Brief of Argument, filed by Counsel Lamin J. Darbo today sought whether the Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants’ Statement of Case should be struck out.
The State, through the Solicitor General, filed the “Notice of Objection” on behalf of the 1st and 2nd Defendants (The Attorney General and the Inspector General of Police), raising four legal and procedural arguments:
– No Provision for Filing: They argue that the Rules of the Supreme Court do not provide for the filing of a “Reply to Defendants’ Statement of Case”.
– Introduction of New Issues: The Reply allegedly introduces new issues that are not necessary for the determination of the suit.
– Lack of Verifying Affidavit: The Defendants claim that the Reply was not verified by an affidavit, which they argue is a requirement for all statements of cases under Rules 46(2)(a) and 48(2)(a) of the Supreme Court Rules.
– Unclear/Irrelevant Paragraph: The Defendants seek to strike out paragraph 19 of the Reply, calling the nearly two-page-long section “unclear, irrelevant and difficult to respond to”.
The Plaintiff counter the arguments of the State. In his brief of argument, Counsel Darbo, representing Modou Ceesay, vehemently urges the Court to dismiss the State’s application as “frivolous and utterly lacking merit”.
On procedure and verification, Counsel J. Darbo argues that the requirement for a verifying affidavit is inapplicable to the Reply. He explained that the Reply is not a new Statement of Case, but rather an answer to the Defendants’ version of events.
Counsel Darbo submitted that the Reply is “not relatable to the Plaintiff’s Statement of Case as stated at Rule 46 of the Supreme Court Rules”. Furthermore, he contended that a literal interpretation of Rules 46(2)(a) and 48(2)(a) “cannot stand for the proposition they proffered”.
On new issues and paragraph 19
Contrary to the State’s objection, Counsel Darbo maintains that no new matters were introduced in the Reply. Instead, the reply contains “applications triggered by the Defendants’ Statement of Case,” which are answers to “mere denials” necessary to “place the full facts before the Court for a just determination of the case”.
Regarding the length of Paragraph 19, Counsel Darbo confirmed it is a direct answer to paragraph 25 of the Defendants’ Statement of Case. Paragraph 25 of the State’s case had denied that the President sent anyone “to beg the Plaintiff for anything”.
Counsel Darbo accepted that the paragraph was long, but argued that paragraph 19 is “self-contained” and dealt with a “pivotal issue central to a proper understanding of what was driving the reaction of the Defendants”.
Additionally, Counsel J. Darbo in his brief asserts that Seedy Keita is “competent to swear an affidavit” due to his “central involvement in events preceding the forceful removal of the Plaintiff from his office and office space”.
Background of the case
The case of Modou Ceesay, the former Auditor General, challenges the circumstances surrounding his removal from office, following a controversial ministerial appointment he publicly declined.
Modou Ceesay filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that the actions of the Attorney General and IGP in ordering police officers to forcefully remove him from the National Audit Office violated provisions of the 1997 Constitution and the National Audit Office Act, 2015.
The State, in its defence, denied the removal was unlawful, insisting Ceesay voluntarily relinquished his post by accepting the Cabinet appointment.
