Supreme Court to Rule on Controversial Amnesty Law
By Kemeseng Sanneh (Kexx)
The Supreme Court has begun hearing a legal challenge brought by the Coalition of Progressive Gambians and journalist Kemeseng Sanneh against the Attorney General and the Clerk of the National Assembly.
The case contests the constitutionality of the Inquiry (Amendment) Act, 2023, which grants the president powers to grant amnesty to individuals barred from public office by commissions of inquiry.
The applicants argue that Sections 19, 20, and 21 of the amended Act conflict with Sections 200 to 206 of the 1997 Constitution, which set out the legal framework for commissions of inquiry and delineate the limits of presidential authority.
They are seeking a declaration that these provisions are unconstitutional, ultra vires, and therefore null and void. The plaintiffs contend that the National Assembly exceeded its legislative mandate by passing provisions that effectively undermine the binding nature of commission findings.
Senior Counsel Lamin J. Darboe, representing the plaintiffs, informed the court that a motion had been filed on March 21, 2025, seeking permission to submit a statement of claim after the deadline. He supported the motion with a 12-paragraph affidavit sworn by Ebrima Chatty.
Chief Justice Hassan B. Jallow questioned the justification for the late filing. In response, Counsel Darboe argued that the case served the public interest and justice. While cautioning against frequent delays in the name of public interest, the Chief Justice allowed the motion to proceed after Darboe issued an apology.
The court noted a procedural error in the motion’s heading, which listed the Clerk of the National Assembly as the first defendant, while the body referred to the Ministry of Justice. Darboe acknowledged the discrepancy and requested to amend paragraphs 3 and 4. The State did not object, and the amendment was granted.
A further objection was raised by State Counsel Wakawa, who pointed out that Counsel Darboe referred to amending the “amended statement of the case,” even though the initial statement had already been struck out. Darboe accepted the correction and clarified that he was seeking to amend the current statement of the case.
The court accepted the amendment and adjourned proceedings to April 10, 2025, giving the state time to file its response.
