The Attorney General’s Chambers has filed a motion before the Supreme Court seeking the recusal of four Justices, including Chief Justice Edrissa Faal himself, from hearing the constitutional challenge brought by the Bar Association against Edrissa Faal’s appointment.
The suit was filed by the Gambia Bar Association through its trustees, Neneh M. C. Cham, Abdoulie Fatty and Nyima Samateh, against the Attorney General as 1st Defendant and Edrissa Mohammed Omar Faal (also known as Pa Edi Faal) as 2nd Defendant. The Bar Association contends that Faal’s appointment as Chief Justice does not satisfy the qualifications prescribed under Section 139 of the 1997 Constitution, and is asking the Court to declare the appointment unconstitutional, null and void, and to order Edi Faal to refund any monies paid to him by virtue of the appointment.
However, in a Motion on Notice, Principal State Counsel Patrick Gomez, acting for the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants, asked the Court to order the recusal of Justices including Chief Justice Edrissa M.O. Faal, Justice Cherno S. Jallow, Justice Omar M.M. Njie and Justice Awa Bah for the hearing of the case.
The motion provided the grounds of each of the four justices for the recusal. For Edi Faal, the motion stated that, as a named defendant, he cannot preside over the hearing and determination of an action challenging the validity of his own appointment. As Edi Faal is the subject of the suit and his appointment is being challenged, he is clearly interested in the outcome and cannot be impartial.
For Justice Cherno Jallow, the affidavit in support notes that Justice Jallow is the most senior sitting justice other than the Chief Justice. Under the order of seniority in the Supreme Court (Abubakar Datti Yahaya, Nicholas Colin Browne-Marke, Cherno S. Jallow, Awa Bah, Edrissa F. M’Bal, and Omar M.M. Njie), if the court grants the Bar Association’s relief and declares Faal’s appointment void, Justice Jallow would become the likely successor to the Chief Justice position based on seniority. That creates a direct interest in the outcome of the suit.
In Justice Njie case, the affidavit states that Justice Omar M.M. Njie attended both meetings of the Judicial Service Commission on June 9th and July 1st, 2026, when the commission deliberated on Faal’s qualifications and made its recommendation for his appointment. The participation in the JSC’s determination creates a conflict in determining the constitutional validity of the appointment he recommended.
The affidavit identifies the JSC as comprising: Hassan B. Jallow (Chief Justice, Chairperson), Omar M.M. Njie (Member), Hussein Thomasi (Solicitor General & Legal Secretary), Sulayman Samba (former Secretary General, Member), Mary A. Samba Jallow (Gambia Bar Association representative, Member), and Abdou Conteh (Judicial Secretary).
Justice Awa Bah: The affidavit notes that Justice Awa Bah has been appointed as Judge of the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice for the period 2026 to 2030, and her impending commencement of duties at the ECOWAS court in October 2026 creates a conflict of interest.
The motion further asked the Court to order that the matter be constituted and heard by Justices other than the four. The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by Fatou Waggeh, a Legal Clerk at the Attorney General’s Chambers, which referenced Judicial Service Commission meeting minutes of 9th June and 1st July 2026 showing Justice Njie’s attendance, and the Final Communiqué of the 69th Ordinary Session of the ECOWAS Authority of Heads of State and Government, confirming Justice Bah’s appointment to the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice.
The Bar Association filed an Affidavit in Opposition to the Motion on Notice on September 9, 2026, through its President, Neneh M.C. Cham. The Association does not oppose the recusal of Chief Justice Faal, and admits Justice Njie’s position only to the extent of his membership of the Judicial Service Commission, applying to have the relevant paragraph struck out.
However, it opposes the recusal of both Justice Jallow and Justice Bah, arguing that seniority does not, of itself, determine succession to the office of Chief Justice, noting that Edi Faal himself was appointed from outside the ranks of the sitting Justices and that neither Justice Jallow’s seniority nor Justice Bah’s forthcoming ECOWAS appointment discloses any personal or pecuniary interest, bias, or conflict sufficient to warrant recusal.
The Bar Association also filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection to the recusal motion, contending that the request for the Court to direct in advance how a substitute panel should be constituted is premature, since no panel has yet been constituted, no hearing date fixed, and no quorum difficulty has actually arisen. The Association described the motion as, in that respect, an abuse of the process of the Court.
Both sides had earlier traded a Notice of Preliminary Objection (25th August 2026) and Affidavit in Opposition (25th August 2026) on a related front, in which the State disputed the Bar Association’s locus standi to bring the suit. The State’s preliminary objection raises two grounds to dismiss the case
On ground one. The State argues that the Bar Association Trustees do not have locus standi to institute the suit on behalf of the Bar Association, because the Constitution of the Bar Association does not authorise the Trustees to institute proceedings on behalf of the association.
Ground two: The State contends that the reliefs sought by the Bar Association are not justiciable, while the Bar Association had sought an accelerated hearing of the case, a request the State opposed as unnecessary and prejudicial to its time to prepare a defence.
When I contacted the Registrar of the Supreme Court for the way forward of the matter in terms of the processes of the matter, he stated that the issue will be dealt with after vacation in accordance with the Supreme Court rules.
