Why President Barrow Was Right to Remove Auditor-General Modou Ceesay

By Retired Lt. Colonel Samsudeen Sarr

       

The recent uproar over the removal of Auditor-General Modou Ceesay has been dramatized by critics as a constitutional crisis. In reality, it is not the Constitution that is under assault, but professionalism and decorum. What the nation witnessed was not a breakdown of democratic order, but a textbook case of insubordination cloaked in the language of political martyrdom.

     

At the center of the issue is not Section 158 of the 1997 Constitution—itself unambiguous in giving the President authority to appoint and, when necessary, dismiss the Auditor-General for “inability,” “incompetence,” or “misbehavior.” Rather, the issue is Mr. Ceesay’s reckless decision to abandon discretion, defy professional norms, and drift into opposition politics.

When he publicly accused the President of fabricating a story about his supposed acceptance of the Trade Ministry, Mr. Ceesay crossed a red line. Internal consultations of that nature should have been handled privately, not paraded in the press as a public challenge to the Head of State. Once an Auditor-General brands the President of the Republic a liar in the public arena, the relationship of trust is irreparably broken.

           

The Auditor-General’s Office is not just another government department. It is the guardian of public finance, an institution that depends on integrity, restraint, and mutual trust with the executive. Without that trust, the credibility of the office collapses.

Instead of seeking constructive dialogue, Mr. Ceesay chose confrontation. Worse, he sought refuge in the arms of opposition lawyers and activists, turning himself from a neutral financial watchdog into a partisan combatant in an election season. His decision to retain senior lawyer Lamin J. Darbo—himself a recent aspirant for the UDP presidential candidacy—was hardly a coincidence. It was a political statement, one that transformed the matter from a constitutional query into a partisan campaign.

This raises the uncomfortable but necessary question: was Mr. Ceesay ever functioning as an impartial Auditor-General, or had he long been aligned with the opposition while masquerading as an independent civil servant? His actions suggest the latter.

President Barrow has both the duty to lead and the obligation to defend the integrity of state institutions. The National Audit Office must remain above politics, not dragged into the mud of party rivalries. Allowing its head to openly undermine the presidency, humiliate the Head of State, and politicize the institution would have been a dereliction of that duty.

Critics who shout “constitutional violation” conveniently ignore that misbehavior is a recognized and legitimate ground for dismissal. What greater misbehavior exists than to turn a constitutionally independent office into a weapon for opposition politics while publicly ridiculing the President?

From Abu Denton and M.I. Secka to Karamba Touray under Yahya Jammeh, Gambian Auditor-Generals have discharged their duties with professionalism, tact, and respect for state institutions. None ever dragged the presidency into a public credibility contest. Mr. Ceesay’s conduct is unprecedented—and unacceptable.

This is not about stifling independence; it is about safeguarding the dignity of public office. Mr. Ceesay’s refusal to vacate his post, his public accusations against the President, and his overt embrace of opposition allies all constitute clear grounds of misbehavior under the Constitution.

By removing him, President Barrow did not weaken the Audit Office. He preserved it from descending into partisan warfare. Leadership is not always about doing what is popular. It is about doing what is necessary to protect the state and its institutions.

For that reason, President Barrow was right—firmly and unambiguously right—to act.