Banjul Mayor Rohey Malick Lowe has asked The Gambia’s Court of Appeal to suspend the implementation of adverse findings and recommendations made against her by the Commission of Inquiry into Local Government Councils, as the Attorney General’s Chambers challenges her application, describing it as premature and legally unsustainable.
Mrs. Lowe is seeking an interim court order to prevent the government from acting on the Commission’s findings while her substantive appeal remains pending. However, the State argues that no enforcement action has been taken against the mayor and that her application is based on fears about possible future consequences rather than any existing legal action.
On August 3, 2026, the Mayor filed her Notice of Appeal from the adverse findings and recommendations of the Commission in the Commission’s notice dated May 12, 2026. She is represented by Abdoulie Fatty of A. Fatty and Co.
The appeal raises four main issues, that the Commission acted ultra vires, misconstrued the statutory duties of a mayor, deprived the appellant of her constitutional right to a fair hearing and failed to identify any specific law that the appellant had contravened.
Mrs. Lowe maintains that the Commission imposed responsibilities on her that are not provided for under the Constitution, the Local Government Act 2002, as amended, the Commission of Inquiry Act or the Commission’s 2023 Procedural Rules.
She also disputes the Commission’s interpretation of the respective roles of the mayor and the council’s chief executive officer. According to her appeal, the law places responsibility for the day-to-day administration and financial accountability of the council on the chief executive officer, who serves as its accounting officer.
On the question of procedural fairness, the mayor argues that her constitutional rights under Section 24, alongside Sections 202 and 204, were violated because she was not given access to the Commission’s report, witness statements, exhibits and transcripts used to arrive at the adverse findings.
She further contends that the Commission failed to specify the particular acts or omissions through which she allegedly breached her legal responsibilities.
On these grounds, Mrs. Lowe is asking the Court of Appeal to declare the findings unconstitutional, unlawful, null and void, and to quash them together with any legal consequences arising from them.
A day after filing her substantive appeal, on August 4, her lawyer submitted a separate Notice of Motion seeking an interim order to halt the implementation of the Commission’s recommendations until the appeal is determined.
The application also seeks to restrain the Attorney General and any public authority acting through his office from enforcing the findings, while maintaining the existing legal position pending the court’s decision.
In an affidavit supporting the application, Fatou Saho, a legal assistant at A. Fatty & Co, raised concerns about the possible impact of the Commission’s findings on the mayor’s political future.
The affidavit contends that the findings may disqualify Mrs Lowe from running for re-election as Mayor of Banjul or any other public offices.
With local government elections expected around May 2028, the mayor’s legal team maintains that allowing the findings to remain enforceable while the appeal is pending could cause irreparable damage to her political rights.
It argues that even if she eventually wins her appeal, the outcome could have little practical value if she has already been prevented from participating in an election.
The affidavit further maintains that suspending the findings would not prejudice the Attorney General, while allowing the people of Banjul to retain their democratic right to choose their representatives.
However, the Attorney General’s Chambers has challenged the legal basis of the interim application.
The state would move the Court of Appeal to dismiss or strike out the motion, Patrick Gomez, the acting director of civil litigation and international law, said in a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 26 October 2026.
The State contends that the motion is premature because there is no enforcement order, administrative decision or other action pending before the court against Mrs. Lowe which requires suspension.
“The mayor’s concerns are rooted in hypothetical future scenarios, not in any proven or imminent government action to implement the Commission’s recommendations,” Mr. Gomez argues.
According to the preliminary objection, the application does not establish any present legal injury or disclose a cause of action that would justify the court exercising its jurisdiction to grant the interim orders being sought.
The Attorney General’s Chambers therefore argues that there is no sufficient legal basis for the relief requested by the mayor.
Importantly, the State’s preliminary objection concerns the application for interim protection and does not constitute a response to the substantive grounds of Mrs. Lowe’s appeal. The merits of her challenge to the Commission’s findings have yet to be addressed by the Attorney General.
The matter came before a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal on Tuesday, October 27, 2026, when the State raised its preliminary objection to the mayor’s application.
Her lawyer, Abdoulie Fatty, is expected to respond to the objections presented by the Attorney General’s Chambers.
Meanwhile, the substantive appeal has been adjourned to November 17, 2026, for the adoption of written briefs.
The case raises important questions of law concerning the powers and limits of commissions of inquiry, the statutory duties of elected mayors and council administrators and when courts may intervene to suspend adverse findings pending the determination of an appeal.
The argument is whether the commission acted within its powers and whether the findings against the Banjul mayor should be kept enforceable pending the Court of Appeal’s consideration of her appeal.
