Gambian Government Denies Unlawful Dismissal of Former Auditor General in Supreme Court Defense Filing
Constitutional Crisis or Political Transition? The Legal Battle Over The Gambia’s Auditor General Position
In a dramatic legal confrontation that has captured national attention, The Gambian government has formally denied allegations of unlawfully dismissing former Auditor General Modou Ceesay, setting the stage for a constitutional showdown at the Supreme Court. The State Law Office filed its comprehensive defense on October 20th, 2025, directly challenging Mr. Ceesay’s claims and presenting a fundamentally different narrative about his departure from one of the nation’s most crucial financial oversight positions.
The case, which pits the former auditor against both the Attorney General and Inspector General of Police, raises profound questions about the independence of constitutional offices, the boundaries of presidential authority, and the delicate balance between government appointments and institutional autonomy. At its core, this legal battle represents more than just a personnel dispute—it’s a test case for The Gambia’s democratic institutions in the post-Jammeh era.
The Government’s Position: A Voluntary Transition, Not a Removal
According to the defense affidavit sworn by Mod K. Ceesay, Chief of Staff and Minister for Presidential Affairs, the government maintains that the former Auditor General was never removed from his position. Instead, they argue he voluntarily relinquished his role when he accepted a ministerial appointment on September 10th, 2025.
“The defendants categorically deny that the President ever removed him,” states the official defense document, emphasizing that the constitutional grounds for removing an Auditor General are strictly defined and were never invoked in this case. The government’s position rests on the principle that accepting a ministerial role inherently requires vacating any conflicting constitutional office.
The defense paints a picture of a smooth transition, describing how President Adama Barrow extended the ministerial appointment based on Mr. Ceesay’s “expertise in finance, investment, and public administration”—a recognition of his professional capabilities rather than any attempt to sideline him from his auditing responsibilities.
The Succession Timeline: A Day of Dual Appointments
September 10th, 2025, emerges as the critical date in this unfolding drama. According to the government’s timeline, two significant events occurred simultaneously: Modou Ceesay’s appointment as Minister of Trade, Industry, Regional Integration, and Employment, and Cherno Amadou Sowe’s appointment as the new Auditor General.
The defense argues that Mr. Ceesay “ceased to be Auditor General on 10th September 2025” the moment he accepted his new ministerial portfolio. This interpretation raises a fundamental constitutional question: can one individual simultaneously hold both a ministerial position and the office of Auditor General? The government’s resounding answer is no, citing the inherent conflicts of interest and separation of powers principles embedded in The Gambia’s constitutional framework.
Yet the situation quickly escalated when, according to the defense filing, Mr. Ceesay continued to occupy the Auditor General’s office, effectively preventing his successor from assuming the duties of the position. This physical occupation of the office space transformed what might have been a routine administrative transition into a full-blown constitutional confrontation.
Broader Implications: Audit Independence and Government Oversight
Beyond the immediate personnel dispute, the case touches on critical issues of institutional independence and government accountability. The former Auditor General’s lawsuit alleges interference in his audit work, particularly regarding access to two significant entities: the National Food Security Processing and Marketing Company and the Gambia Revenue Authority’s taxpayer database.
The government’s defense offers detailed rebuttals to these claims, framing them not as interference but as lawful protection of confidential information. Regarding the National Food Security Processing and Marketing Company, the defense cites a complaint from a senior company official who alleged that Mr. Ceesay sought access to his personal bank account without proper authorization—an action the State argues would contravene the Banking Act.
Similarly, the defense contends that Mr. Ceesay’s request for the Gambia Revenue Authority’s full taxpayer database presented “a potential risk to the confidentiality of taxpayer information” and was lawfully resisted under the Income and Value Added Tax Act. These arguments highlight the tension between an auditor’s need for comprehensive access and the legal protections surrounding sensitive financial information.
The Constitutional Framework: Legal Provisions at Stake
The government’s defense leans heavily on specific sections of The Gambia’s 1997 Constitution, particularly Sections 158, 159, 160, and 169, which outline the appointment, tenure, and removal procedures for constitutional officeholders like the Auditor General. These provisions are designed to protect the independence of key institutions while establishing clear procedures for transitions.
Additional legislation cited in the defense includes the National Audit Act of 2015, which governs the Auditor General’s powers and responsibilities, along with the Banking Act and Income and Value Added Tax Act, which the government argues justify its position on information access disputes.
The defense has presented the Supreme Court with two pivotal legal questions that will likely determine the case’s outcome:
- Whether the Plaintiff was ever removed from office by the President
- Whether, after his appointment as Minister and the subsequent appointment of Cherno Amadou Sowe as Auditor General, the Plaintiff could lawfully continue to hold the office of Auditor General
Documentary Evidence and Broader Context
The government’s case relies on several key documents, including letters of appointment and acceptance, an official State House media release, and social media posts from What’s On–Gambia. This documentary evidence aims to establish a clear paper trail supporting the voluntary nature of Mr. Ceesay’s transition to ministerial office.
The case unfolds against the backdrop of The Gambia’s ongoing democratic transition, where the independence of institutions like the Audit Service represents a critical safeguard against the abuses of power that characterized previous regimes. The outcome of this legal battle will likely set important precedents for how constitutional offices interact with the executive branch and whether individuals can simultaneously hold multiple high-level government positions.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments from both sides, legal experts, civil society organizations, and international observers are watching closely. The decision will not only determine the immediate fate of Modou Ceesay’s position but could reshape the landscape of governmental accountability and institutional independence in The Gambia for years to come.
The case represents a classic tension in democratic governance: the executive’s need to appoint qualified individuals to ministerial positions versus the imperative to protect the independence of oversight institutions. How the Supreme Court balances these competing priorities will reveal much about The Gambia’s constitutional maturity and commitment to the separation of powers doctrine.
As both sides prepare their legal arguments, one thing remains clear: this case transcends the individuals involved and touches on fundamental questions about the nature of governance, accountability, and constitutional order in contemporary Gambian society.