The Auditor-General’s office is no ordinary department. It is the watchdog of public finance, demanding integrity, discretion, and absolute trust between the officeholder and the President who appointed him. Once that trust is shattered, the partnership collapses.
Instead of exercising prudence, Mr. Ceesay chose confrontation over consultation. Worse still, he leaned on opposition lawyers and activists to carry his banner, exposing himself not as a neutral guardian of state accounts but as a partisan combatant gearing up for an election season. That was not the behavior of an Auditor-General but that of an aspiring politician.
The decision to hire senior lawyer Lamin J. Darbo, himself a recent aspirant for the UDP presidential ticket, was not a coincidence. It was a political statement. With that move, Mr. Ceesay stopped being perceived as an Auditor-General defending his tenure and started looking like an opposition operative hiding behind a constitutional office.
This raises the real question as to whether Mr. Ceesay had ben working as an impartial Auditor-General or been quietly aligning with the opposition all along? His conduct strongly suggests the latter.
President Barrow has a duty not only to lead but to defend the integrity of state institutions. The National Audit Office must remain above politics, not dragged into partisan brawls. Allowing its head to openly undermine the executive, embarrass the presidency, and politicize his role would have been a dereliction of that duty.
Critics who cry “constitutional violation” deliberately ignore that “misbehavior” is a valid ground for termination. What greater misbehavior exists than to humiliate the Head of State in public and turn a sensitive watchdog institution into a platform for opposition politics?
From the days of Abu Denton and M.I. Secka to Karamba Touray under Yahya Jammeh, Gambian Auditor-Generals have operated with professionalism and tact. They understood the delicate balance between independence and respect for the institutions of state. Not one of them ever dragged the presidency into a public credibility contest. Mr. Ceesay’s defiance is therefore unprecedented, and worse, unacceptable.
This is not about silencing independence but about safeguarding the dignity of public office. Mr. Ceesay’s refusal to vacate his post, his public accusations against the President, and his embrace of opposition allies all constitute clear misbehavior under the Constitution.
President Barrow acted firmly, and rightly so. By removing Mr. Ceesay, he did not weaken the Audit Office but protected it from descending into partisan politics.
The courts may still weigh in, but it is beyond dispute that no government can function if its most senior officials openly defy the President and use their offices as political weapons.
President Barrow was right to act, because leadership sometimes demands not what is popular, but what is necessary to protect the state.
The uproar surrounding Auditor-General Modou Ceesay’s removal has been painted by critics as a constitutional crisis. In truth, what the nation is witnessing is not a constitutional breakdown but a textbook case of insubordination dressed up as political martyrdom. At the heart of the storm is not the Constitution but Mr. Ceesay’s reckless choice to abandon professionalism and flirt with opposition politics.
Section 158 of the 1997 Constitution is not a riddle. It gives the President the power to appoint the Auditor-General and, crucially, to terminate the appointment on specific grounds, including “inability,” “incompetence,” or “misbehavior.”
By publicly accusing the President of fabricating a story about his supposed acceptance of the Trade Ministry, Mr. Ceesay brazenly crossed into the realm of misbehavior. Matters of internal consultation should have been resolved privately, not paraded in the press as a challenge to the Head of State. No Auditor-General, indeed no senior public servant, can credibly keep his post after publicly branding the President of the Republic a liar.
The Auditor-General’s office is no ordinary department. It is the watchdog of public finance, demanding integrity, discretion, and absolute trust between the officeholder and the President who appointed him. Once that trust is shattered, the partnership collapses.
Instead of exercising prudence, Mr. Ceesay chose confrontation over consultation. Worse still, he leaned on opposition lawyers and activists to carry his banner, exposing himself not as a neutral guardian of state accounts but as a partisan combatant gearing up for an election season. That was not the behavior of an Auditor-General but that of an aspiring politician.
The decision to hire senior lawyer Lamin J. Darbo, himself a recent aspirant for the UDP presidential ticket, was not a coincidence. It was a political statement. With that move, Mr. Ceesay stopped being perceived as an Auditor-General defending his tenure and started looking like an opposition operative hiding behind a constitutional office.
This raises the real question as to whether Mr. Ceesay had ben working as an impartial Auditor-General or been quietly aligning with the opposition all along? His conduct strongly suggests the latter.
President Barrow has a duty not only to lead but to defend the integrity of state institutions. The National Audit Office must remain above politics, not dragged into partisan brawls. Allowing its head to openly undermine the executive, embarrass the presidency, and politicize his role would have been a dereliction of that duty.
Critics who cry “constitutional violation” deliberately ignore that “misbehavior” is a valid ground for termination. What greater misbehavior exists than to humiliate the Head of State in public and turn a sensitive watchdog institution into a platform for opposition politics?
From the days of Abu Denton and M.I. Secka to Karamba Touray under Yahya Jammeh, Gambian Auditor-Generals have operated with professionalism and tact. They understood the delicate balance between independence and respect for the institutions of state. Not one of them ever dragged the presidency into a public credibility contest. Mr. Ceesay’s defiance is therefore unprecedented, and worse, unacceptable.
This is not about silencing independence but about safeguarding the dignity of public office. Mr. Ceesay’s refusal to vacate his post, his public accusations against the President, and his embrace of opposition allies all constitute clear misbehavior under the Constitution.
President Barrow acted firmly, and rightly so. By removing Mr. Ceesay, he did not weaken the Audit Office but protected it from descending into partisan politics.
The courts may still weigh in, but it is beyond dispute that no government can function if its most senior officials openly defy the President and use their offices as political weapons.
President Barrow was right to act, because leadership sometimes demands not what is popular, but what is necessary to protect the state.
By Retired Lt. Colonel Samsudeen Sarr.
