The Barrow Administration’s removal of the Auditor General, Mr. Modou Ceesay was a deliberate attack on the constitutional independence of an office created to hold government accountable. The judgment sends a clear message that constitutional protections are not optional and cannot be ignored for political convenience. The decision serves as a powerful reminder that no government or individual is above the Constitution and that citizens may choose to vindicate their constitutional rights through due process.
The Supreme Court’s decision on Mr. Ceesay’s unlawful removal from office is more than a personal victory. By declaring his removal unlawful, the Court reaffirmed a basic principle of constitutional democracy: that where the Constitution creates an independent public office, the Executive cannot remove the position holder simply because it wishes to do so.
Although the Auditor General works closely with the Executive and other public institutions, the work of the National Audit Office is not subordinate to the Executive. Its constitutional role is to independently audit public finances, exposing waste, illegality and misuse of taxpayers’ money. Without that independence, public accountability is weakened. The Constitution (section 158), reinforced by the National Audit Act, protects the office from executive interference by limiting the grounds on which an Auditor General may be removed. The Supreme Court’s decision makes it clear that those constitutional safeguards were not followed by the Barrow administration.
Basic English common law dictates that public authorities can exercise only the powers given to them by law. The Executive cannot act simply because they believe it is politically convenient or desirable. When public authorities exceed their legal authority, their actions become unlawful, regardless of who holds power. That is the essence of the rule of law which is an important function of state.
A fundamental principle of English common law is that public authorities may exercise only those powers conferred on them by law. The Executive cannot act simply because it considers a course of action politically convenient or desirable. Where public authorities act beyond the powers granted to them, their actions are unlawful, regardless of who holds power/office. That is the essence of the rule of law: the ruling serves as a reminder that government itself is subject to the law and must act within its legal limits.
The financial consequences of the ruling on the taxpayer are significant. The taxpayer must now bear the cost of what should have been an avoidable constitutional violation. In addition to paying the current Auditor General, the State has been ordered to compensate Mr. Ceesay through vindicatory damages, salary arrears, pension, gratuity and continuing remuneration until the end of his tenure. Public estimates suggest the total liability could approach D9 million. That is money that could otherwise have supported our failing schools, hospitals or other essential public services – areas where public needs remain acutely urgent.
Arguably, the best remedy for an unlawful removal from public office is reinstatement because it restores the constitutional order rather than awarding damages. However, the Supreme Court declined to reinstate Mr. Ceesay because he had not sought that remedy and because the relationship between him and the Executive had irreparably broken down.
In my mind’s eye, the judgment seems to raise broader questions about the lack of transparency and accountability within government. The judgment does not appear to seek o determine whether the Attorney General provided incorrect legal advice, it would be wrong to assume that from the judgment alone. Still, one cannot help but wonder whether constitutional safeguards were overlooked or disregarded during the decision-making process. Indeed, legitimate questions remain about the quality of legal advice and the internal government processes that led to the police removing Mr. Ceesay from office. Whether this judgement should result in political consequences is ultimately a matter for the President, Parliament and, ultimately, the Gambian people, many of whom are preoccupied with a severe cost-of-living crisis.
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution. Let’s hope that the lasting lesson is that independent constitutional offices exist to protect the interest of the public, and no Executive should believe it can override those protections without the state paying a heavy legal, financial and constitutional price. Perhaps this judgment, together with other calamitous missteps and many policy failures, will influence how voters assess the Barrow administration’s record as they exercise their constitutional right to choose their leaders at the December 2026 elections.
