By JarranewsTV Staff Reporter, Banjul
The State, represented by the Solicitor General and Legal Secretary, has filed a strong objection before the Supreme Court seeking to strike out the reply submitted by former Auditor General Modou Ceesay in his ongoing constitutional suit.
Mr. Ceesay is challenging what he describes as his forceful removal from office, naming the Attorney General, the Inspector General of Police, and Cherno Alieu Sowe as the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants, respectively.
In a “Brief of Argument on Notice of Objection” dated 12 November 2025, counsel for the 1st and 2nd defendants asked the Supreme Court to strike out parts—or the entirety—of Mr. Ceesay’s “Reply to Defendants’ Statement of Case,” arguing it is procedurally defective and substantively improper.
Four Grounds of Objection
The State’s objection rests on four principal arguments:
1. No Provision Exists for Filing a Reply
The Solicitor General argued that the Supreme Court Rules do not provide for a plaintiff to file a reply to a defendant’s statement of case. He noted that such a document is unnecessary and improperly introduces matters not relevant to the constitutional issues before the court.
2. Lack of Mandatory Verification
The Solicitor General submitted that Mr. Ceesay’s reply is incompetent because it was not verified by an affidavit, contrary to Rules 46(2)(a) and 46(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules. He stressed that any statement of case lacking verification cannot serve as evidence or be relied upon during trial.
3. Introduction of New and Irrelevant Issues
The State further contended that the reply improperly introduces new issues and attaches annexures—such as an audit report—that are unnecessary for resolving the constitutional questions raised in the suit. This, according to the Solicitor General, risks complicating matters before the court.
4. Paragraph 19 Described as Unclear and Irrelevant
Particular concern was raised regarding Paragraph 19 of the reply, which spans nearly two pages. The Solicitor General described the paragraph as unclear, irrelevant, and difficult to respond to, urging the court to strike it out.
State’s Prayer Before the Court
The Solicitor General urged the Supreme Court to strike out the entire reply for failing to comply with procedural requirements.
Alternatively, should the court choose to strike out only Paragraph 19 and order an amendment, the State requested leave to file a rejoinder responding to any amended portions of the document.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the objection in due course as the high-stakes constitutional battle continues.
Editor’s Note:
The Gambia operates a procedural legal system in which strict adherence to court rules is essential. All filings—including statements of case, replies, and supporting evidence—must comply with established procedures to ensure fairness, clarity, and efficient determination of matters before the courts. Documents that are not properly verified or filed in accordance with the rules may be struck out, and in some instances, entire cases can be dismissed for procedural irregularities. Proper procedure remains a cornerstone of the justice system and a safeguard for the integrity of judicial proceedings.
No comments:
Post a Comment