The Gambia Bar Association has filed an action before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of Ediissa M.O. Faal’s appointment as Chief Justice, just hours after his appointment was officially announced.
In a memo to members, the GBA Executive stated that the action follows a resolution of the General Membership at an Emergency General Meeting on July 6, 2026, and correspondence with the President, the Judicial Service Commission, and the Attorney General.
According to the GBA, it is the first time the Association has approached the Supreme Court to challenge the appointment of a Chief Justice.
The GBA is seeking five declarations from the Supreme Court:
First, a declaration that Edi Faal does not satisfy the constitutional qualifications required for Chief Justice under Section 139 of the Constitution.
Second, a declaration that the appointment is unconstitutional, null and void, and of no effect due to non-compliance with Section 139.
Third, a declaration that the appointment and/or swearing-in before the retirement of the incumbent Chief Justice on August 1, 2026, is unconstitutional, null and void, on grounds that there is no vacancy in the office of Chief Justice at that time.
Fourth, an order setting aside the appointment for non-compliance with Section 139.
Fifth, such further orders or directions as the Supreme Court deems appropriate.
A notable aspect of the GBA’s challenge is the third claim: that no vacancy exists in the office of Chief Justice because the incumbent has not yet retired.
The GBA argues that Edi Faal’s appointment and swearing-in before August 1, 2026, when the current Chief Justice’s term officially ends, is itself unconstitutional.
The GBA emphasised that the challenge is not personal. The memo states:
“This action is therefore not about the person of Edi Faal, his professional standing or his distinguished career. It is about the Constitution and the obligation of the Bar, like every institution and public authority, to respect and defend its supremacy.”
The Association justified the step on institutional grounds. As a stakeholder on the Judicial Service Commission, with responsibility for justice administration and defence of the rule of law, the GBA argued it cannot “raise a concern and then remain silent when the appointment proceeds.”
The memo emphasized that “fidelity to the Constitution must remain at the heart of the Association’s work.”
