Gambiaj.com – (BANJUL, The Gambia) – In a landmark ruling on Thursday, December 12, 2024, the Supreme Court of The Gambia dismissed the United Democratic Party’s (UDP) case against the appointments of Fatoumata Jahumpa Ceesay, Ousman Rambo Jatta and other advisory appointments made by President Adama Barrow. The case, filed by Hon. Madi Ceesay and others, sought to challenge the constitutional validity of these appointments, alleging a breach of constitutional provisions against political officeholders serving in public office.

The court ruled that the UDP failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claims, highlighting significant procedural and evidentiary shortcomings in the case.

Key Judgments in the Case

The Supreme Court found no evidence that the Alliance for Patriotic Reorientation and Construction (APRC), the party allegedly linked to Fatoumata Jahumpa Ceesay, is a registered political entity. The court stated that even if the APRC were assumed to be a registered party, the plaintiffs did not produce evidence, such as a letter of appointment, to substantiate their claim that Jahumpa Ceesay held a political office within the party at the time of her appointment as High Commissioner.

Similarly, the court dismissed allegations against Ousman Rambo Jatta, stating there was no evidence linking him to an official political role in the APRC or demonstrating that the APRC was the ruling party.

Advisory Appointments Deemed Valid

In addition, the court addressed allegations against several appointees serving as advisers to President Barrow while allegedly holding positions in the National People’s Party (NPP). The court ruled that these appointees, including Dembo Bojang, Dou Sanno, Lamin Cham, Hendry Gomez, Lamin K. Saidy, and Sulayman Camara, are public officers rather than public servants. Their roles are temporary and not bound by restrictions under the civil service regulations.

The court affirmed the validity of their appointments and emphasized that public officers are not precluded from engaging in political activities.

Setbacks in Other Claims

The UDP also faced setbacks in its claims against Lamin Bojang, allegedly linked to the Alliance for National Reorientation and Development (ANRD), and Sheikh Tijan Hydara of the Gambia Alliance for National Unity (GANU). The court ruled that there was no evidence proving that these entities are registered political parties or that their leaders held political office.

Sheikh Tijan Hydara further denied that GANU is a registered party, shifting the burden of proof to the plaintiffs, which they failed to satisfy.

Background of the Case

The lawsuit, initiated by Hon. Madi K. Ceesay, a UDP Member of Parliament, aimed to have the Supreme Court declare the appointments of Fatoumata Jahumpa Ceesay and Ousman Rambo Jatta unconstitutional. Citing sections 166 and 170 of the 1997 Constitution and G.O. 3104 of the General Orders for Public Service, the plaintiffs argued that the appointees violated constitutional provisions prohibiting political officeholders from serving in public office simultaneously.

The UDP’s legal team, led by veteran lawyer Ousainou Darboe, sought an order directing the appointees to cease performing their official duties.

Non-Suit and Future Options

The court concluded by declaring a non-suit for both plaintiffs and defendants, stating that neither side provided sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims. This ruling allows the plaintiffs to refile the case if they can provide stronger evidence to support their allegations.

This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s emphasis on evidence-based litigation while providing a precedent on the legal interpretations of political appointments in The Gambia.