The Supreme Court has delivered its final ruling on the entitlements of former Auditor General Modou Ceesay, awarding him a total of D17,585,213.69 in compensation and a complete rejection of the State’s arguments that certain allowances and benefits should not be paid.
The ruling, delivered today, July 30, 2026, by Justice O.M.M. Njie, resolves all disputes over Modou Ceesay’s salary, allowances, gratuity, pension, and fuel entitlements following the court’s July 7 judgment, which found that his removal was unlawful.
The court’s comprehensive ruling includes a payment of D1,529,291.00 for salary and allowances from September 15, 2025 (the date of removal) to July 7, 2026, with 10% annual interest totalling D54,088.65.
Future compensation of D8,853,790.00 for aggregated and total salary and allowances from July 7, 2026 to November 25, 2031 (the end of his nine-year term).
Gratuity of D732,310.65, which the court found was uncontradicted by the State despite the government’s initial challenges.
Fuel allowance of D2,560,000.00 for 64 months of fuel payments at D40,000 per month. The court found that Modou Ceesay’s evidence of entitlement to the allowance was not contradicted by the State.
Monthly pension of D120,733.50 per month, calculated at 75% of Modou Ceesay’s net monthly earnings of D160,978.00. The pension is to begin immediately, with effect from July 7, 2026.
Vindicatory damages of D4,000,000.00 as previously awarded.
The State claimed and approved that Modou Ceesay has taken a loan of 144, 266.61 for the National Audit Office, and the court ordered that the loan deduction of D144,266.61 will be deducted from the total.
The Supreme Court definitively rejected the State’s contentions on nearly every disputed item.
On disputed allowances, Justice Njie found that “the Plaintiff is only entitled to a basic monthly salary of about D58,000.00, less the outstanding loan amount that is not disputed. On the responsibility allowance of D40,000.00 per month, State Counsel argued that its payment is discretionary and that the Plaintiff, in the circumstances at hand, is not entitled to the same, likewise Telephone, Residential and Special Skills Allowances.
However, the Supreme Court found that the arguments lacked evidentiary support and upheld Modou Ceesay’s entitlement to the full salary and allowances he claimed.
On pension and gratuity, the State argued that the benefits accrue only upon actual retirement at age 60, and that Modou Ceesay could not receive them for completing a nine-year term. Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the evidence supported Modou Ceesay’s entitlements to both gratuity and pension based on his service as Auditor General.
On the fuel allowance: Supreme Court noted that while the State claimed Modou Ceesay received coupons instead of cash, the evidence showed he was entitled to the D40,000 monthly allowance. Supreme Court awarded the full amount for 64 months (September 2025 to November 2031).
However, the Supreme Court varied its earlier 60-day payment dateline extending the deadline to November 30, 2026. Justice Njie found it reasonable “in the circumstances to vary its order for the reasons deposed to in the affidavit of Lamin Foday Jawara, Permanent Secretary PMO, connected to the sittings of the National Assembly to appropriate the required funds to settle the sums involved.”
However, the Supreme Court maintained that monthly pension payments should begin immediately with effect from July 7, 2026.
The total payment the State must pay is as follows: D1,529,291.00 (with D54,088.65 interest) on or before November 30, 2026;
D8,853,790.00 on or before November 30, 2026
D732,310.65 (gratuity) on or before November 30, 2026
D2,560,000.00 (fuel allowance) on or before November 30, 2026
D120,733.50 (monthly pension) beginning immediately
D4,000,000.00 (vindicatory damages) on or before November 30, 2026
Minus D144,266.61 (loan deduction)
Total: D17,585,213.69 (after loan deduction) plus ongoing monthly pension payments of D120,733.50.
The Court’s reasoning, Justice Njie emphasised that the purpose of the post-judgment proceedings was “solely to ascertain the precise amounts payable to the Plaintiff.”
Supreme Court noted that the State had not sought a review of the July 7 judgment itself, and therefore the court could not reopen the legality of the payments already ordered.
However, the court acknowledged its discretion to “vary that period where such a variation is warranted by the circumstances of the case.”
The Supreme Court decision reinforces that unlawful removal from a constitutionally protected office carries substantial financial consequences for the State, and that compensation extends beyond back pay to include all benefits the officer would have accrued had the unlawful removal not occurred.
