Former Auditor General Modou Ceesay has replied to the state’s statement of defence, denying the government’s claims in his ongoing Supreme Court case challenging his removal, asserting that his unconstitutional dismissal was a direct consequence of his refusal to accept a ministerial appointment and to audit some government institutions.
In his reply to Defendants’ (state) Statement of Case against the Attorney General and the Inspector General of Police, Modou Ceesay provided a counter-narrative stating that he was unlawfully removed shortly after rejecting a transfer to the Ministry of Trade, Industry, Regional Integration and Employment.
Modou Ceesay denies the Defendants’ (the State’s) claims, focusing on four major areas in their state of defence. He further refutes the state’s claim that he accepted the ministerial appointment and later changed his mind. In his reply, he stated that on September 10, 2025, he met with the President and was informed of the Cabinet reshuffle and offered to be Minister of Trade.
He stated he verbally informed the President of his decision to respectfully decline the offer and wished to continue serving as Auditor General. He added that the rejection was formalised in a letter dated September 11, 2025, which he delivered to the Office of the President.
He further stated that his decision came after meetings and communication, and he was consistent with his decision to remain in his current constitutional role as Auditor General.
Furthermore, in his reply, Ceesay defends the independence of the National Audit Office and denies any misconduct or attempt to derail audits
Modou Ceesay claims that his Office was directed to put on hold or delay some audits, including those on Lands, NSPMC, and GRA. He also stated that the GRA audit was halted due to his request for back-ups of the databases of their digital revenue systems, which were part of the audit requirements.
Modou Ceesay further states that the audit of the Government of The Gambia (GoTG) was initiated by his office on September 10th and was scheduled to be submitted by the end of the month. He added that the Auditor General’s office is an Independent Office and its affairs must be carried out without fear or favour, and must not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority.
Modou Ceesay recounts the events leading to his physical removal from office, which he argues was illegal and unconstitutional, asserting he was unlawfully denied access to his office as Auditor General and has never resigned or been lawfully removed.
He states that on September 15, 2025, after arriving at his office, police officers from the Gambia Police Force ordered him to vacate his office and hand over all his official belongings. He affirms that the police officers forcibly removed him from the NAO premises despite protests from his staff, and the incident was recorded and broadcast on media outlets.
Modou Ceesay also denies the State’s claim that he was responsible for leaking or circulating confidential information, stating that at no time ever did he call for a press conference and never took away, circulated or disclosed official documents.
The former Auditor General invoked the Supreme Court’s Original Jurisdiction, arguing that the defendants’ (state) actions violated provisions of the 1997 Constitution and the National Audit Office Act, 2015, which govern the appointment and removal of the Auditor General. The constitutional and statutory provisions he cited are Sections 158, 159, 160, and 169 of the 1997 constitution which establish the office of the Auditor General, define its functions, and safeguard the office’s independence and security of tenure.
He stated that removal is strictly limited to specified grounds like inability, misbehaviour, or incompetence by following due process.
He also cited the National Audit Office Act, 2015: Sections 3(2), 11, 13, 14, and 16, which established the NAO’s autonomy and powers.
Modou Ceesay stated that the actions of the 1st Minister of Justice, Dawda Jallow, and the 2nd Defendant, Inspector General of Police, in entering or causing officers of the police force to enter the premises of the National Audit Office to forcibly remove the Plaintiff violate the Constitution and the National Audit Office Act.
Modou Ceesay’s legal team, led by Lamin J. Darboe, describes the Defendants’ (state) counterarguments as “frivolous in their utter meaninglessness,” calling upon the Supreme Court to uphold the constitutional safeguards protecting independent oversight institutions.
The case is set to come in December before the five-panel of judges of the Supreme Court. A test of executive power versus the independence of constitutional institution offices will be decided by the Supreme Court.
By Kexx Sanneh
