By Kebba AF Touray
In a rare legislative reversal, the National Assembly on Tuesday, July 8, 2025, made a U-turn and rescinded its earlier decision to adopt Clause 42 of the Elections Bill, following a constitutional objection raised by Hon. Musa Cham, Member for Serrekunda.
The clause in question proposed to raise the minimum number of registered voters required to nominate a presidential candidate from 5,000 to 15,000—an increase that Cham warned would violate the 1997 Constitution. His argument, grounded in Section 46 of the supreme law, set off a swift reconsideration of the Assembly’s position.
“Clause 42 of the Elections Bill is in contravention with our Constitution,” Cham told the chamber, drawing attention to the political rights guaranteed under Section 26, which affords every Gambian the right to take part in elections, whether to elect or to be elected.
He quoted directly from Section 46, which mandates that a presidential candidate’s nomination must be backed by not less than 5,000 registered voters, with at least 200 supporters coming from each administrative area. Raising that minimum, Cham argued, would not only conflict with the constitutional requirement but would effectively limit access to political participation.
“By increasing this threshold through an act of the Assembly, we would be violating the Constitution, specifically Section 5 Subsection 1(b), which prohibits Parliament from enacting laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution,” Cham warned. “So I respectfully move that this Assembly reconsider and rescind its decision on Clause 42.”
Attorney General Concedes Legal Risk
Cham’s intervention drew immediate attention from lawmakers and prompted a legal response from Attorney General Dawda Jallow, who has led the government’s presentation of the Elections Bill.
Jallow, in his remarks to the Assembly, acknowledged the validity of Cham’s concerns. “We looked into the issue. The Constitution sets a clear minimum base—not less than 5,000 registered voters. Changing that to not less than 15,000 alters the constitutional base. That change makes it vulnerable to legal challenge,” he said.
The Attorney General cautioned against triggering constitutional litigation, saying, “We do not want to create a situation where we have to go to court for interpretation. That’s not a healthy position for legislation that is supposed to enhance our democracy.”
Unanimous Reversal by Lawmakers
With the constitutional conflict clearly outlined and acknowledged, the matter was put before lawmakers for a vote. In a unanimous decision, the Assembly voted to rescind its earlier adoption of Clause 42, marking a rare and significant about-face in legislative proceedings.
The withdrawal of the clause was seen by many observers as a victory for constitutionalism and a reflection of the Assembly’s growing sensitivity to legal checks on its powers.
Clause 42 had proposed to triple the number of required nomination signatures—a move that critics warned would create an unfair barrier for aspiring presidential candidates, especially independent ones and those from smaller parties.
“This clause would have narrowed the political playing field and undermined democratic inclusivity,” one lawmaker remarked after the session, praising the decision to pull it back. “The Constitution must remain the guiding light in all legislative decisions.”
Political Implications and Legal Caution
Though some in the Assembly initially supported Clause 42 as a way to prevent frivolous candidacies and maintain electoral seriousness, the constitutional breach highlighted by Hon. Cham proved decisive.
“This is not about party lines,” Cham said after the session. “This is about defending the Constitution. When the law speaks clearly, we must listen.”
The Elections Bill—still under scrutiny—remains a critical component of broader electoral reforms promised since the fall of former President Yahya Jammeh. With constitutional tensions already high following the Assembly’s rejection of the 2024 Draft Constitution just a day earlier, the U-turn on Clause 42 signals a renewed willingness by lawmakers to prioritize legal fidelity over political maneuvering.
