By Isatou Sarr
The Gambia’s Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in a high-profile case accusing President Adama Barrow of bypassing constitutional safeguards in the removal of former Auditor General Modou Ceesay.
Presided over by Chief Justice Hassan B. Jallow, the full-day hearing focused on allegations that the president engineered an “artificial vacancy” in the constitutionally protected office. The controversy arose after Barrow offered Ceesay a ministerial post, which he rejected, before a successor was appointed and police enforced his removal.
Counsel for Ceesay, Lamin J. Darboe, argued that the executive violated the Constitution. He cited Sections 158–160 of the 1997 Constitution and Section 16 of the National Audit Office Act, which prescribe a formal process for removing an Auditor General, limited to incapacity, misbehaviour, or incompetence, and only after a tribunal hearing.
“None of that happened here. No tribunal was constituted, no formal allegations were presented, and no chance to defend was given,” Darboe told the court.
He said President Barrow relied on Section 71, which allows appointments to ministerial positions, to offer Ceesay the Ministry of Trade, Industry, Regional Integration, and Employment, with the aim of vacating the Auditor General post without triggering the constitutionally mandated removal process. Ceesay formally rejected the offer, but Cherno Amadou Sowe was appointed as his successor, and police removed Ceesay from the National Audit Office in September 2025.
“The Auditor General cannot be removed at the pleasure of the Executive,” Darboe said, warning that bypassing constitutional procedures undermines the separation of powers and public confidence in independent oversight institutions.
Representing the state, senior lawyer Ida Drammeh argued that no unlawful removal occurred. She said Ceesay vacated the office by virtue of the ministerial appointment, and that police simply enforced the new reality. Drammeh cited alleged expressions of acceptance by Ceesay and said the burden of proof lay with the plaintiff.
Amicus curiae Abdoulie Fatty emphasized the broader constitutional implications, highlighting the Auditor General’s institutional independence under Sections 158–160, and warned that circumventing formal removal procedures could set a dangerous precedent for other protected offices.
The dispute began in September 2025, when President Barrow offered Ceesay the trade ministry portfolio amid a wider cabinet reshuffle. Ceesay’s refusal, reportedly the first public rejection of a ministerial appointment in the country, triggered tensions and youth-led protests.
The Supreme Court has adjourned the case for judgment. Analysts say the ruling could clarify the limits of executive authority over independent constitutional offices. A decision in favor of Ceesay would reinforce oversight protections, while a ruling for the state could expand presidential discretion in personnel matters.
The case has attracted both national and international attention, highlighting ongoing debates over executive power and constitutional checks in one of Africa’s youngest democracies.
