Gambiaj.com – (BANJUL, The Gambia) – In the last few days, The Gambia has been drawn into an avoidable and unfortunate standoff following the attempted ministerial appointment of Mr. Modou Ceesay, the now-former Auditor General. What began as a poorly handled cabinet reshuffle is now spiraling into a national test of legal integrity, public trust, and political maturity. At the heart of the issue is a simple, yet consequential question: Can an Auditor General be removed from office for declining a ministerial appointment?
Legally, the answer is clear. Under the National Audit Office Act of 2015, the Auditor General holds office until retirement age and can only be removed under specific conditions—namely, incompetence, misbehavior, or inability to perform official duties. None of these apply to Mr. Modou Ceesay. Refusing a ministerial post is not misconduct; it is not dereliction of duty. It may, in fact, be the ultimate act of professional integrity – choosing the constitutional duty of oversight over political promotion.
And yet, Mr. Modou Ceesay now finds himself locked out of his office, reportedly removed from his position, and replaced. The presidency claims he initially accepted the appointment and later changed his mind. Mr. Modou Ceesay, in his own statement, has firmly contradicted this narrative, stating that he never accepted the role and formally declined it the day after the announcement.
This disagreement over facts has led to something far more serious: a public loss of trust in process, institutional confusion, and growing calls, especially from youth groups, for nationwide protests. It does not need to escalate further. In any democracy, tensions between branches of government or between public servants and executive decisions are not uncommon.
But the resolution of those tensions must always come through dialogue, law, and restraint – not through force or arbitrary action. This is not just about Mr. Modou Ceesay. It is about the principle of institutional independence. The National Audit Office exists precisely to hold the government accountable. To move its head into a political position – worse still, to punish him for refusing – sets a dangerous precedent that threatens to compromise the integrity of oversight institutions in The Gambia.
The lesson is clear: no government should be in a position to dismiss its own auditor without cause. That is how checks and balances work. That is how trust is built in public financial management.
The Government is advised to pull back from the brink. The presidency retains the constitutional right to appoint ministers. That prerogative is not in dispute. But wisdom is not measured by power – it is measured by the restraint of power. If a procedural error occurred, if there was miscommunication, it is not too late to correct it – with dignity.
Reinstating Mr. Ceesay, or subjecting the matter to independent legal review, would not be a sign of weakness. It would be a demonstration of maturity, of respect for the rule of law, and of a commitment to institutional integrity. On the other hand, to persist in removing an Auditor General under dubious grounds risks undermining public confidence – not just in this administration, but in the system as a whole.
To the youths of the Gambia, indeed your voice matters, but so does your method. The widespread concern and mobilization by young Gambians is a powerful sign that democracy is alive and well. You are paying attention. You care about governance. You want accountability. But the struggle for democracy must be waged with discipline and direction.
The streets can amplify your voice, but they must never drown reason or become a source of chaos. Channel your outrage into organized civic engagement, peaceful protest, and policy reform, not into instability. A principled cause requires a principled approach.
What Comes Next? A Path Forward
This crisis is not beyond repair. Here is what can and must happen now:
1. Immediate de-escalation: Withdraw any security forces from the NAO premises. The use of coercion in constitutional matters erodes public trust.
2. Legal review of the dismissal: An independent legal body, such as the judiciary or National Assembly, should examine the legality of Mr. Modou Ceesay’s removal under the 2015 Act
3. Clear communication from all sides: Both the Office of the President and Mr. Modou Ceesay should publicly commit to resolving this through legal and constitutional channels.
4. Reforms to appointment protocols: No public appointment should be announced until written acceptance has been secured. This episode must not be repeated.
In conclusion, the question arises: is this a defining moment for Gambian democracy? In any case, this is a moment of institutional stress, but also of institutional learning. The Gambia has endured much worse, and it has come a long way. But democratic consolidation is not measured by elections alone – it is also measured by how a nation handles controversy, conflict, and constitutional ambiguity.
The Gambia government must uphold the law, even when it is inconvenient. The public must hold the government accountable, but through means that protect peace and stability. This is not a time for pride, nor protest without cause. It is a time for principled action, for honest correction, and for national maturity.
Let Mr. Modou Ceesay return to his office – if not out of political goodwill, then out of constitutional necessity. Let this issue be resolved through the law, not the loudest voice. Let this moment be not a stain, but a step forward. The Gambia deserves no less.
Dr. Ebrima Ceesay
The author is a Senior Research Fellow in International Development, University of Birmingham. Dr. Ceesay is also a political scientist with more than 15 years of experience and has mainly specialized in the fields of democracy and migration studies.
