By Isatou Sarr
The Brikama Revising Court has dismissed an objection seeking the removal of Fatou Bah’s name from the voters’ register in the Tanji Constituency, ruling that the objector failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that she was not entitled to be registered.
The judgment was delivered on 21 September 2026 by Magistrate Demba Senghore at the Brikama Revising Court.
The objection was filed by Lamin Njie, who sought the expungement of Bah’s name, identified by voter number 120260410124817, from the voters’ register.
Njie alleged that Bah was not a Gambian citizen and was neither born in nor resident in Tanji.
The matter first came before the court on 3 September 2026. Njie was present and represented by counsel B. Badjie, while Bah was absent.
According to the judgment, personal service had not initially been effected on Bah. The court subsequently granted an application for substituted service and directed that the court processes be published in a widely circulated newspaper.
An affidavit of service dated 10 September confirmed that the substituted service had been effected. Bah nevertheless remained absent when the matter returned to court.
The court consequently allowed Njie to present his evidence in Bah’s absence.
Objector’s evidence
Testifying on oath, Njie said he was a Gambian citizen, businessman, resident of Tanji and registered voter.
He told the court that Bah had attended a voter registration centre without supporting documentation and was issued an attestation by the Alkalo.
Njie said he initiated the objection because he believed that Bah was not a Gambian citizen.
He also alleged that the Alkalo did not maintain a proper register of births and deaths and that he did not know any of Bah’s relatives in Tanji.
Njie further questioned the basis on which the Alkalo issued the attestation, arguing that the Alkalo lacked the proper authority to do so.
Counsel for the objector submitted that the evidence remained unchallenged and uncontroverted because Bah had not appeared before the court.
Counsel also argued that the document used to facilitate Bah’s registration was not a genuine attestation but an Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) form issued for the purpose of obtaining a voter’s card.
He further asked the court to take into consideration the fact that Bah, who was born in 1972, was registering to vote for the first time.
No evidence was presented on behalf of Bah.
Court’s findings
In considering whether the objection should succeed, the court said the absence of the respondent did not automatically entitle the objector to judgment.
The court referred to the case of Patience Sonko Godwin v Lawrence Jah & 2 Ors (2006) HC/415/057/AO, in which it was held that a judgment in default is not automatically granted merely because a respondent fails to appear.
The court also cited Ousman Baldeh & Anor v Momodou Tijan Jallow (2002–2008) 2 GLR 284, which established that civil cases are determined on the preponderance of probabilities.
The court said the burden of proving that Bah was not entitled to remain on the voters’ register rested on Njie.
It noted that although Njie’s evidence was unchallenged, this did not relieve him of the evidential burden imposed by Sections 141, 142 and 143 of the Evidence Act.
The court examined Njie’s evidence and found that his assertions did not constitute positive proof that Bah was not a Gambian citizen.
It noted that an Alkalo’s attestation is expressly recognised under Section 13 of the Elections Act, 2025 as one of the documents that may support voter registration.
“The mere fact that the Respondent produced no other document at the registration centre does not render the attestation invalid,” the court held.
The court further relied on Section 156 of the Evidence Act, which provides for presumptions concerning the regularity of official acts and the authority of persons acting in a public capacity.
It said Njie had not produced evidence capable of displacing those presumptions.
The court held that Njie’s personal belief that the Alkalo lacked the authority to issue the attestation, his lack of knowledge of Bah’s relatives and his assertion that the Alkalo did not maintain proper birth and death records were insufficient to establish that Bah was not a Gambian citizen.
The court also rejected the argument that Bah’s first-time voter registration was evidence of non-citizenship.
It noted that the objector had produced no documentary evidence, independent witnesses or concrete facts establishing Bah’s alleged non-citizenship or other grounds for disqualification under Section 13 of the Elections Act, 2025.
The court said the evidence remained at the level of suspicion, belief and personal opinion.
“Suspicion, however strong, is not and can never constitute sufficient proof,” the court stated.
The court consequently ruled that Njie had failed to discharge the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that Bah was not entitled to have her name retained on the voters’ register.
The objection was dismissed, and the court ordered that Fatou Bah’s name remain on the voters’ register for the relevant polling station or constituency in Tanji.
There was no order as to costs.
About The Author
