Gambiaj.com – (BUNDUNG, The Gambia) – In a significant turn of events, the Bundung High Court, presided over by Justice Aisatou Jallow-Sey, has dismissed a lawsuit filed by five members of the United Democratic Party (UDP) challenging the appointments of regional Governors and Deputy Governors. The case was struck out due to the non-appearance of the UDP members and their legal representatives at the scheduled hearing.

On July 17, 2024, the court was set to resume the case at 11:00 am, but by 11:45 am, the plaintiffs and their counsel were still absent. Justice Jallow-Sey, noting the absence and the lack of any explanation for it, declared, “I hereby struck out the case.”

The lawsuit, which centered around the legality of the appointments of the Governors and Deputy Governors, invoked sections 123, 124, and 125 of the Local Government Act. The UDP members contended that the appointments were in violation of section 123 of the Act, which stipulates that governors must be civil servants of a rank not below that of a director.

Section 123 of the Local Government Act explicitly states: “There shall be, for each of the Local Government Areas, except for the City of Banjul and Kanifing Municipal Council, a governor, who shall be a civil servant, not below the rank of a director in the civil service, appointed by the President.”

The plaintiffs sought a court declaration that the appointments were unlawful, illegal, and null and void. They argued that the individuals appointed did not meet the statutory qualifications required for the positions. Additionally, they requested that the court order the Governors and Deputy Governors to cease performing their duties and refrain from presenting themselves as officeholders.

Interestingly, the government had already removed the contested officials from their positions before the second hearing of the case. They were subsequently integrated into the Civil Service of The Gambia as permanent secretaries or deputy permanent secretaries.

This development raises questions about the future of the case. While it stands dismissed due to procedural lapses on the part of the plaintiffs, the underlying legal issues remain unresolved. Whether the UDP will seek to revive the case or pursue alternative legal avenues is yet to be seen. For now, the dismissal underscores the importance of diligence and presence in judicial proceedings.