By Kemeseng Sanneh (Kexx)
The Inspector General of Police (IGP) has been dragged before the Supreme Court by former Auditor General Modou Ceesay, who claims he was unlawfully and forcefully removed from office by police officers acting under the IGP’s command. The case, filed against both the IGP and the Attorney General, challenges the legality of the actions taken against him and questions the President’s authority to remove an Auditor General from office.
In his writ before the Supreme Court, Mr. Ceesay invokes the Court’s original jurisdiction under Sections 158, 159, 160, and 169 of the 1997 Constitution, as well as Sections 3(2), 11, 13, 14, and 16 of the National Audit Office Act, 2015. Through his lawyers at Dabanani Chambers in Sukuta, he seeks several declarations including that the IGP and his officers violated the Constitution and the National Audit Office Act when they entered the National Audit Office and forcibly removed him from his position.
Mr. Ceesay contends that the incident amounted to an unconstitutional interference with the independence of the Auditor General’s office, which the Constitution shields from executive control. He further argues that his removal and subsequent eviction by the police were illegal, null, and void.
“The actions of the 1st and 2nd Defendants in entering or causing officers of The Gambia Police Force to enter the premises of the National Audit Office to forcefully remove the Plaintiff from his personal office and from his position as Auditor General are in violation of the Constitution and the National Audit Office Act,” his statement of claim reads.
The former Auditor General maintains that his tenure could only be terminated in accordance with due process and that no such procedure was followed. He asserts that the police had no lawful authority to remove him, and that their actions undermined not only his constitutional rights but also the institutional independence of the National Audit Office.
Mr. Ceesay’s removal followed a decision by President Adama Barrow, who later appointed him as Minister of Trade — an offer he declined. He chose instead to seek judicial interpretation on whether the President has constitutional powers to remove an Auditor General.
Since his departure, a new Auditor General has been appointed and currently occupies the office, while the former occupant pursues his legal challenge before the Supreme Court.
The case raises fundamental constitutional questions about the separation of powers, the autonomy of oversight bodies, and the limits of executive authority in The Gambia. The Auditor General’s office is one of the key institutions mandated to ensure transparency and accountability in the management of public resources, and its independence is protected by law.
Legal analysts say the outcome of the case could have far-reaching implications for the protection of independent constitutional offices and the rule of law. A ruling in favour of Mr. Ceesay could redefine the boundaries of presidential power and reaffirm the institutional independence of the National Audit Office and similar oversight bodies.
As the matter stands before the Supreme Court, the focus now turns to whether the country’s highest court will uphold the constitutional safeguards designed to protect public officers from executive overreach and preserve the integrity of The Gambia’s accountability institutions.
