July 16, 2026

On September 15, 2025, the National Audit Office, an independent constitutional office responsible for public financial oversight, came under unprecedented attack when the government, through the Gambia Police Force, forcefully removed the Auditor General, Mr. Modou Ceesay, from office. The Executive justified its action on the basis that the Auditor General (AG) had verbally accepted an offer from the President of The Gambia to serve as Minister of Trade, Industry, Regional Integration and Employment.

The matter was taken to the Supreme Court by Modou Ceesay, challenging the legality of his removal from an office whose tenure is protected under the 1997 Constitution and the National Audit Office Act, 2015. Gambia Participates, together with the Association of Victims-led Organization (AVLO), Centre for Research and Policy Development (CRPD) and the Victims’ Centre joined the case as amici curiae to assist the court by offering our views/expertise on the constitutional issues raised in the matter. Although the State opposed our application, we commend the Supreme Court for granting our application and admitting our Amicus brief.

The Supreme Court’s Verdict

On July 7, 2026, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment, declaring that the Inspector General of Police violated section 158 of the 1997 Constitution by forcefully removing the Auditor General.

The Supreme Court further held that the Auditor General was not properly removed from office by the State, and that, even if he had verbally accepted the offer of the President to serve in his Cabinet as Minister of Trade, the verbal acceptance does not meet the constitutional requirements and thus, has no legal effect. The court emphasized that the Plaintiff subsequently declined the ministerial offer in writing.

Gambia Participates welcomes this important verdict of the Supreme Court, which reaffirms the constitutional protection accorded to the office of the Auditor General, strengthens the principles of constitutionalism, the rule of law and separation of powers.

The judgement also reinforces the public narrative that the police as an institution, which is supposed to enforce and protect the law, once again failed in their law enforcement duties by wrongfully enforcing an unconstitutional order. The exercise of excessive and unlawful Executive powers, through the police on the National Audit Office, erodes public trust and confidence on public finance accountability.

The Decision on Reinstatement

In addition to the Court’s verdict, it has observed that:

“the natural course of action” where unlawful removal is established would ordinarily be reinstatement.

However, in exercising its constitutional discretionary powers, the Court decided not to reinstate the Auditor General citing the particular facts of the case, namely:

• (i) the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Executive has severed,

• (ii) another Auditor General had been serving in office for more than nine months, and

• (iii) reinstatement “will not be conducive to sound public administration and hence not be in the public interest”

Our Position on Institutional Independence

Gambia Participates respectfully holds the view that the exercise of the constitutional and statutory duties of the Auditor General should not depend on a cordial relationship with the Executive. His role is to exercise public accounts auditing duties without fear or favour, as provided for by the laws of The Gambia.

What is essential is that the Auditor General fulfils the constitutional requirements and qualifications to discharge his duties competently and independently. The Executive and all public institutions subject to audit should comply with officers or staff of the National Audit Office during audit exercise, regardless of the personal relationship between the head of office holders of the auditor and the auditee; as far as the audit is done within the confines of the law.

While we welcome the Supreme Court’s ruling that the removal of the Auditor General was illegal, the decision not to reinstate him raises important constitutional separation of powers questions regarding the practical extent at which the Executive could interfere with the independence of constitutionally protected institutions and ultimately achieve their political interference goal, even though they know such actions would be unconstitutional, as witnessed in the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ya Kumba Jaiteh v The Clerk of the National Assembly, when the President illegally removed a sitting Member of the National Assembly (although later reinstated by the Court) and now in the case of Modou Ceesay v the Attorney General.

Given the constitutionally backed security of tenure attached to the office of the Auditor General, we firmly believe that the attempt to appoint the Auditor General to a ministerial position (an office that does not enjoy the same constitutional protection as that of the Auditor General’s office) was intended to strategically facilitate his removal from the National Audit Office, while making the act lawful.

It is our view that the Executive’s interference on the National Audit Office’s leadership may have been deliberately designed to impede the work of the Auditor General in conducting full and independent audits on some public institutions. This process, in our opinion, compromises the process of scrutinizing and ensuring accountability of the financial activities of these core public offices.

Disclaimer

Nothing in this statement should be interpreted as challenging or protesting the judgment of the Supreme Court. Gambia Participates fully respects the authority and finality of the Court's decision. We offer these observations not in advocacy for any party of the suit, but as an institution steadfastly dedicated to advancing the principles of fiscal accountability, constitutionalism, democratic accountability and the rule of law.