Yesterday, the Supreme Court commenced hearings on the constitutional challenge brought forth by former Auditor General Modou Ceesay against the Gambian government. The case was presented for preliminary mention before the Honourable Chief Justice Hassan B. Jallow, who is presiding as a single judge.
The case showcased strong legal representation from both parties. The State was represented by Solicitor General Hussain Thomasi, accompanied by Deputy Director of Civil Litigation, Okeke; Principal State Counsel, Wakawa; Senior State Counsel, S. L. Jobarteh; State Counsel, Mariama Ngum; and State Counsel, F. Touray. The plaintiff was represented by former Auditor General Ceesay, along with Counsel Lamin J. Darbo, Jarra Jeng, and Fatoumatta Bondi.
Chief Justice Jallow provided clear directives and established timelines to facilitate the progress of the proceedings. The defendants, Attorney General Dawda A. Jallow and Inspector General of Police Seedy Mutarr Touray, have been granted a period of 21 days from yesterday, the day of mention, to submit their response to the Auditor General’s claim.
Counsel J Darboe, representing the plaintiff Modou Ceesay, has been allotted 7 days to submit a rejoinder, if deemed necessary. The Supreme Court is set to provide additional instructions for the substantive hearing, which is planned for the Court’s session running from December 1st to December 12th, 2025.
The lawsuit stems from Modou Ceesay’s assertion that his ousting from the constitutional position of Auditor General was both illegal and in violation of the constitution. Modou Ceesay claims that officers of the Gambia Police Force physically forced him to vacate his office at the National Audit Office (NAO).
In his “Writ to Invoke Original Jurisdiction” submitted to the Supreme Court, the former Auditor General identifies Attorney General Dawda A. Jallow as the 1st Defendant and Inspector General of Police Seedy Mutarr Touray as the 2nd Defendant.
He claims that the actions of the two defendants in directing the police to enter the NAO premises and forcibly remove him are in direct violation of the 1997 Constitution, referencing sections 158, 159, 160, and 169.
Additionally, Modou Ceesay argues that the defendant’s actions violate multiple provisions of the National Audit Office Act, 2015, specifically sections 3(2), 11, 13, 14, and 16.
In his suit, Modou Ceesay is seeking the Supreme Court to provide definitive declarations and relief, which includes:
- A declaration that his forceful removal by police officers, orchestrated by the 1st and 2nd Defendants, violated specific sections of the 1997 Constitution.
- A declaration that the defendants’ actions contravened sections of the National Audit Office Act, 2015.
- A definitive declaration that his removal from the constitutional office of Auditor General was unlawful and is, therefore, null, void, and of no effect.
He has additionally requested any other orders that the court finds suitable in this matter.
