State Files Defence in Former Auditor General’s Lawsuit

By Jarranewstv Staff Reporter 

Government Denies Wrongful Dismissal Allegations

The State Law Office has submitted its statement of defence at the Supreme Court in response to a suit filed by former Auditor General Modou Ceesay against the Attorney General and the Inspector General of Police.

The case, initiated by Mr. Ceesay, challenges the legality and circumstances under which he ceased to hold office as Auditor General.

According to the defence filed on 20 October 2025, the State maintains that Mr. Ceesay was not unlawfully removed but rather relinquished his position voluntarily after accepting a ministerial appointment.

The defence is supported by an affidavit sworn by Mod K. Ceesay, Chief of Staff and Minister of Presidential Affairs, who stated that he was authorised by the defendants to depose to the affidavit. He affirmed that the facts contained in the statement are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.

State’s Position

The State argues that the former Auditor General accepted an appointment as Minister of Trade, Industry, Regional Integration and Employment on 10 September 2025, and as a result, automatically ceased to hold his previous office.

According to the defence, Mr. Ceesay expressed appreciation for the new appointment during discussions with the President, who commended his performance and considered him well-suited for the ministerial role due to his financial expertise and understanding of the public sector.

The State further contends that Mr. Ceesay never formally declined the appointment. Consequently, Cherno Amadou Sowe was appointed as the new Auditor General on the same day. However, the defence claims that Mr. Ceesay continued to occupy the office, preventing the new appointee from assuming his duties.

Denial of Political Interference

The defendants strongly deny allegations that the President interfered with the functions of the National Audit Office. They maintain that there has been a consistent policy of non-interference with independent constitutional office-holders.

Audit Access Disputes

Responding to Mr. Ceesay’s claims regarding restricted access to audit data, the defence attributes the dispute involving the National Food Security, Processing and Marketing Corporation to issues of banking confidentiality.

It states that a senior official of the corporation lodged a complaint alleging that the former Auditor General attempted to access personal bank records without authorisation, in violation of the Banking Act.

On the question of access to the Gambia Revenue Authority’s database, the State denies any obstruction, arguing that the Auditor General’s demand for the entire taxpayer database posed a security risk and was lawfully resisted under the Income and Value Added Tax Act.

Forcible Removal Allegation

The defence also denies claims that the President or the Inspector General of Police ordered the forceful removal or eviction of the plaintiff from his office, insisting that no such directive was ever issued.

Legal Questions Before the Court

In their Memorandum of Issues, the defendants ask the Supreme Court to determine the following:

1. Whether the President ever removed Mr. Modou Ceesay from his position as Auditor General; and

2. Whether, following his appointment and acceptance as Minister, he could lawfully continue to hold the position of Auditor General.

The State indicates that it will rely on several legal instruments to support its case, including Sections 158, 159, 160 and 169 of the 1987 Constitution, the National Audit Act (2015), the Banking Act, and the Income and Value Added Tax Act.

Among the documents listed as evidence are the letters of appointment and acceptance, an official State House media release, and a social media publication by What’s On – Gambia.

Response to Isac Jammeh’s Misleading Article on Yahya Jammeh’s So-Called “Constitutional Immunity”

   

By Yaya Dampha 

NPP Diaspora Coordinator 

Sweden 

Isac Jammeh’s recent piece attempting to portray former President Yahya Jammeh as being constitutionally immune from accountability reveals a deep misunderstanding of The Gambia’s 1997 Constitution and basic principles of law. His arguments are not only legally flawed but also factually incorrect and intellectually inconsistent. A careful reading of the Constitution itself exposes the weakness of his claims.

1. There Is No Constitutional Immunity for Yahya Jammeh

Contrary to Isac Jammeh’s assertion, the 1997 Constitution of The Gambia does not grant lifelong immunity to any former president. The relevant provision, Section 69, gives only temporary immunity while in office, and even that is limited.

Section 69(1)–(2) states that:

“No civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against any person while holding or performing the functions of the Office of President in respect of anything done or omitted to be done in his or her private capacity.”

However, Section 69(3) goes further:

“After a president has vacated office, no court proceedings shall be instituted against him or her in respect of any act done or omitted to be done in his or her official capacity unless the National Assembly has passed a resolution with not less than two-thirds majority for such proceedings to be instituted.”

In plain language, once a president leaves office, the National Assembly can lift immunity. Therefore, Yahya Jammeh is not untouchable. The Constitution itself provides a legal pathway for holding him accountable.

To claim that “Yahya Jammeh has nothing to answer to the Gambian people” is a gross distortion of constitutional reality.

2. The 1997 Constitution’s Legitimacy Does Not Shield Crimes

Isac Jammeh argues that since the 1997 Constitution was passed by referendum, it somehow sanctifies everything that happened under it. That is a false and dangerous argument.

A law’s legitimacy does not absolve crimes committed under its cover. Apartheid South Africa had a constitution; so did Nazi Germany. Their existence did not cleanse the crimes committed under those regimes.

The fact that Gambians adopted the 1997 Constitution does not mean they surrendered their right to seek justice against tyranny, corruption, or state-sponsored crimes. The Constitution was never intended to shield any individual from accountability.

3. Retroactivity and Accountability: A Misapplied Argument

It is true that laws cannot be made retroactively to punish someone for past actions — but that principle is irrelevant here.

 No one is creating a new law to prosecute Yahya Jammeh. The acts attributed to him — murder, torture, corruption, enforced disappearances, and crimes against humanity — were already crimes under Gambian and international law when they were committed.

Therefore, invoking “non-retroactivity” is nothing more than a legal smokescreen. You cannot hide murder and theft behind legal technicalities.

4. The Ghanaian Victims Case Is Not “Closed”

Isac Jammeh’s claim that the killing of over 50 West African migrants in 2005 — including Ghanaians — was “settled” and “closed” is another gross misrepresentation.

Yes, there was diplomatic engagement and limited compensation paid through the Ghanaian government after ECOWAS intervention, but that was a political arrangement, not a judicial resolution.

 The Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC) later found that Yahya Jammeh personally ordered those killings, making it a matter of international criminal responsibility.

Under international law, crimes against humanity are not subject to immunity or limitation. They remain prosecutable regardless of time, office, or prior settlements.

5. The Same Constitution Empowered the TRRC and Janneh Commission

Perhaps the most self-defeating part of Isac Jammeh’s argument is his claim that “any court or commission to judge Yahya Jammeh is illegal.”

 In fact, it is the very 1997 Constitution he relies on that empowered both the government and the president to establish the TRRC, the Janneh Commission, and other lawful inquiries.

Section 200(1) of the Constitution explicitly empowers the President to:

“Establish a Commission of Inquiry to inquire into any matter of public concern.”

Under this same constitutional authority:

The Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC) was created by an Act of Parliament to investigate human rights violations from 1994 to 2017.

The Janneh Commission was established by the President to investigate Yahya Jammeh’s illicit financial dealings and corruption.

Both commissions — operating fully within the 1997 constitutional framework — found Yahya Jammeh criminally and financially liable for serious violations and abuses.

Therefore, to claim that these commissions are “illegal” is to contradict the very Constitution Isac Jammeh claims to defend.

 You cannot invoke the Constitution to protect Jammeh while rejecting the constitutional mechanisms that expose his crimes.

6. Law Is Law — and Justice Must Follow

Yes, law is law — as Isac Jammeh says — but he fails to understand what that means.

 The law is not a personal shield for the powerful; it is the collective instrument of justice for the people.

 The same 1997 Constitution that gave Yahya Jammeh power also provides the tools to hold him accountable.

You cannot cherry-pick constitutional provisions to protect one man while ignoring those that protect an entire nation.

7. Conclusion: The Constitution Does Not Protect Impunity

The truth is simple: the 1997 Constitution does not and was never intended to protect Yahya Jammeh from justice.

 It provides due process, not permanent immunity.

 The TRRC and Janneh Commission — both constitutionally grounded — have already established the evidence of Jammeh’s crimes.

 Now it is up to the Gambian people, the National Assembly, and the justice system to complete that process.

To twist the Constitution into a shield for tyranny is to betray both law and logic.

 Isac Jammeh’s argument is not a defense of the Constitution — it is an insult to it.

Final Word

Yahya Jammeh ruled The Gambia with fear, blood, and corruption. His accountability is not vengeance; it is the fulfillment of justice under the very Constitution he once abused.

The 1997 Constitution — far from protecting him — is the foundation upon which his crimes will be lawfully addressed.

 Justice delayed is not justice denied. The Gambian people deserve closure — and the law, not propaganda, will deliver it.

Gov’t Vows to Arrest and Prosecute Jammeh if He Returns

Banjul, 28 October 2025 — The Gambia Government has declared its firm stance that former President Yahya Jammeh will face the full force of the law should he return to the country.

In a statement issued on Monday, the government said that while every Gambian, including Jammeh, has the constitutional right to return home, this right does not shield anyone from prosecution for serious crimes.

The announcement follows recent comments by the former leader expressing his intention to return after years in exile. The government said it found it necessary to clarify its position to citizens and international partners.

“The right to return home is guaranteed by the Constitution and respected under international law. However, it does not exempt any person from accountability for serious alleged crimes,” the statement said.

The government cited findings of the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC), which implicated Jammeh in “grave human rights violations, including murder, torture, enforced disappearances, and sexual violence.” It stressed that these findings are taken with “utmost seriousness” and that robust legal measures will be activated in line with Gambian law.

“If and when Mr. Jammeh returns, there will be investigation, arrest, and prosecution — with guarantees of due process, fair trial standards, and respect for the rights of all involved,” the statement added.

The government also refuted claims that Jammeh was granted immunity or protection from prosecution, describing such reports as false. It explained that no Memorandum of Understanding exists, and the only document related to Jammeh’s 2017 departure was an unsigned joint declaration by the African Union, ECOWAS, and the United Nations — a diplomatic effort to secure a peaceful transition, not a legal shield.

“As a sovereign nation, The Gambia retains the right and duty to prosecute serious crimes within its borders,” the statement emphasized. “No political understanding, signed or unsigned, can override this obligation.”

The government reassured victims and their families that justice remains central to national reconciliation, affirming that the TRRC’s recommendations — as endorsed in the Government’s White Paper — reflect an enduring commitment to accountability, justice, and non-recurrence.

Concluding the statement, the government pledged to uphold the rule of law and ensure that impunity is never tolerated. “The Gambia remains steadfast in building a just, peaceful, and democratic society for all, where the rights of every person are safeguarded,” it said.

A Rebuttal to GDC Leader Mamma Kandeh’s Baseless Claims on the 2021 Election

By Yaya Dampha, NPP Diaspora Coordinator

October 27, 2025 | Banjul, The Gambia

Once again, the GDC leader, Mamma Kandeh, has resurfaced with tired and baseless allegations that the 2021 presidential election was rigged. These claims are not only false but also a desperate attempt to mislead the Gambian people and distort a democratic process that was declared free, fair, and transparent by every credible observer — both local and international.

1. Lies About Voter Registration

Mr. Kandeh’s claim that the National People’s Party (NPP) continued to register voters after the official closure of the registration exercise is nothing short of fiction.

Let it be made abundantly clear: the NPP does not, and cannot, conduct voter registration.

In The Gambia, the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) — not any political party — is the only institution legally mandated to register voters. The registration exercise was conducted publicly, nationwide, and monitored by agents of all political parties, including the GDC.

If Kandeh truly believed voter registration continued beyond the official period, he should be able to answer simple questions:

Where did this so-called registration take place?

Who conducted it?

Why did he and his party remain silent throughout the process and only began complaining after losing the election?

The truth is clear: no illegal registration ever took place. Kandeh’s story is a fabrication designed to mislead the public and gain sympathy.

2. The Gambian Election Process Is Transparent and Verifiable

The Gambian electoral system is one of the most transparent in Africa. From voter registration to vote counting, every stage is conducted in public view and under strict scrutiny.

Party agents, local observers, and international monitors were present in every polling station. Votes were cast in transparent ballot drums, counted on the spot before everyone, and results were publicly announced and recorded at each polling station before transmission to regional centers.

Every political party — including the GDC — signed the official result sheets. If Mamma Kandeh truly believed there was manipulation, he should present evidence, not hollow political rhetoric.

3. Observer Reports Confirmed the Election’s Credibility

The 2021 presidential election was widely recognized as credible, peaceful, and transparent.

The European Union Election Observation Mission (EU-EOM) described the process as “peaceful, transparent, and professionally managed.”

ECOWAS and the African Union both affirmed that the elections “reflected the will of the Gambian people.”

The Gambia Civil Society Coalition on Elections reported no irregularities significant enough to affect the final outcome

These respected institutions are independent. Their findings expose Kandeh’s claims as baseless political propaganda.

4. We Understand Mamma Kandeh’s Frustration

We at the NPP understand Mamma Kandeh’s frustration. It is no secret that his party is facing an internal collapse, with members and supporters abandoning him in large numbers to join the NPP — including elected Members of Parliament and councillors.

It is not easy for him politically, and this frustration is now showing through his reckless accusations and attempts to discredit the IEC and the democratic process that he once participated in fully.

Instead of attacking the system, Mr. Kandeh should look inward and ask himself why Gambians — including his own loyalists — continue to reject his leadership and embrace the vision of progress and stability under the NPP.

5. Respect the Will of the Gambian People

The Gambian people made their choice in December 2021. Their votes were counted transparently, and their voices were heard. The IEC performed its duties with professionalism, and the results were endorsed by both domestic and international observers.

Mr. Kandeh should stop insulting the intelligence of Gambians with falsehoods. The people deserve truth, honesty, and leadership, not politics of bitterness and deception.

The NPP will continue to defend democracy, uphold transparency, and focus on development — while others waste their time spreading lies.

The Gambia has moved forward, and no amount of revisionism will turn the clock back.

Signed:

Yaya Dampha

NPP Diaspora Coordinator

National People’s Party (NPP)

Government Denies Claims of Issuing 20,000 Diplomatic Passports

The Government of The Gambia has firmly dismissed allegations that it has issued 20,000 diplomatic passports, describing the claim as false and misleading.

In a press release, the Government clarified that the issuance of diplomatic passports in The Gambia is governed by a transparent and well-defined process. These passports are granted only to Gambian diplomats, their spouses, senior government officials, Gambians serving in international organizations, and other individuals officially representing the country’s interests at home and abroad.

To ensure accountability, the Government noted that as of the end of 2024, a total of 3,030 diplomatic passports had been issued — a figure that was duly shared with the National Assembly.

The statement urged the public to disregard what it described as “baseless allegations” made by a Senegalese journalist and politician, who claimed that the passports were distributed to relatives and former ministers of Senegal’s former President, H.E. Macky Sall. The Government emphasized that this claim is entirely unfounded and appears to be a deliberate attempt to misinform the public and sow discord between The Gambia and the Republic of Senegal.

The Government encouraged citizens to rely solely on official sources for verified information and expressed gratitude to the Gambian people for their continued trust, vigilance, and understanding.

Two Convicted in Bijilo Land Fraud: Court Orders D2.5 Million Compensation

By JarranewsTV Staff Reporter

The Banjul Magistrate’s Court, presided over by Principal Magistrate M. Krubally, has convicted two men—Omar Sey and Dembo Touray—for their involvement in a fraudulent land transaction in Bijilo that defrauded a buyer of D2.5 million.

In a judgment delivered on October 20, 2025, Magistrate Krubally found both accused guilty of conspiracy to defraud and obtaining money by false pretence, while the first accused, Omar Sey, was further convicted on four additional counts of forgery, uttering false documents, and giving false information to a public officer.

             Background of the Case

The case, prosecuted by the Inspector General of Police (IGP), arose from a land transaction in which the complainant, Mbackeh Sowe, purchased a plot in Bijilo for D2,500,000. Evidence presented in court revealed that the rightful owner of the land, Baba Mustapha Marong, a retired Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Information, neither issued a power of attorney nor authorized any sale of the property.

According to testimony, Omar Sey presented a fraudulent power of attorney purportedly signed by Mr. Marong and produced a false police report claiming that the original documents were lost. He then used those falsified papers to conduct a search at the Ministry of Lands, process a Deed of Assignment, and execute the fraudulent sale to the complainant.

The prosecution called five witnesses, including the intermediaries involved in the sale and the true owner of the property, who confirmed that the land was still lawfully his

               Findings of the Court

In delivering judgment, Magistrate Krubally held that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that both accused acted jointly to defraud the complainant.

The magistrate dismissed Sey’s defence—that he acted on the instruction of an unknown individual identified only as “Mr. Njie”—as implausible. His own cautionary statement, tendered as Exhibit B, confirmed his active role in processing the fraudulent documents.

Regarding Dembo Touray, the court found that although he denied direct involvement in document forgery, his repeated presence during the payment stages and his admission of receiving a commission demonstrated his complicity.

       Sentencing and Compensation Orders

Magistrate Krubally described the offences as “aggravated acts of calculated deceit”, before imposing the following sentences:

Omar Sey (First Accused):

Convicted on six counts—including conspiracy, obtaining by false pretence, forgery, uttering, and giving false information.

Fine: D5,000 on each count (total D30,000), in default six months’ imprisonment per count (total three years).

Compensation Order: D1,900,000 to the victim, in default six years’ imprisonment.

The court directed that default sentences shall run consecutively.

Dembo Touray (Second Accused):

Convicted on two counts of conspiracy and false pretence.

Fine: D5,000 on each count (total D10,000), in default six months’ imprisonment per count (total one year).

Compensation Order: D600,000 to the victim, in default two years’ imprisonment.

The default sentences are also to run consecutively.

In accordance with Section 191 of the Criminal Offences Act (2025), the magistrate granted the prosecution’s application for compensation, emphasizing the financial losses suffered by the complainant

Mitigation and Pleas for Leniency

Both convicts, described as first-time offenders, entered pleas for leniency.

Omar Sey cited health concerns and told the court that he had D1,000,000 ready through his counsel as part payment of compensation.

Dembo Touray pleaded for mercy, explaining that he is a family man with three wives and several dependents.

The court noted their pleas but maintained that the seriousness of the offence warranted a deterrent sentence.