Chief Justice and Members of the Supreme Court
A landmark constitutional challenge over the late submission of The Gambia’s 2025 national budget was argued before the country’s Supreme Court this week, as four prominent citizens questioned the legality of the National Assembly’s decision to accept the estimates after the constitutional deadline.
The plaintiffs—activists and civic leaders Sait Matty Jaw, Madi Jobarteh, Coach-Pasamba Jow, and Baboucarr Sufism Nyang Al-Tijani—filed a suit against the Clerk of the National Assembly and the Ministry of Justice, contending that the Finance Minister’s presentation of the 2025 Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure on November 15, 2024, violated Section 152(1) of the Constitution.
That provision, which was amended in 2023, requires the president to cause the national budget to be laid before the legislature “at least sixty days before the end of the financial year.” The plaintiffs argue that the timeline is binding and cannot be unilaterally altered by the National Assembly or its Speaker.
In arguments led by Counsel Abdoulie Fatty—joined by Salieu Taal and Lamin J. Darboe—the plaintiffs urged the Supreme Court to declare the late budget submission unconstitutional and to nullify all proceedings based on it.
“This case is about upholding the rule of law and ensuring that those entrusted with public power act within the strict limits of the Constitution,” Mr. Fatty told the five-judge panel.
He said the Finance Minister’s justification for the delay—ongoing negotiations with international financial institutions like the World Bank and IMF—did not excuse the breach of a constitutional mandate.
At the center of the legal debate is whether the Speaker of the National Assembly acted within her authority when she permitted the Finance Minister to present the budget past the constitutional deadline, relying on the legislature’s internal standing orders.
Mr. Fatty argued that the Speaker’s decision amounted to an act of constitutional interpretation—an authority that, under Sections 120(2) and 127(1)(a) of the Constitution, belongs exclusively to the Supreme Court.
He also contended that while Section 108 of the Constitution allows the legislature to regulate its own proceedings, that power is explicitly subject to the broader constitutional framework. “Standing Orders cannot override constitutional obligations,” he said.
To support his case, Mr. Fatty cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gambia Participates & Another v. Clerk of the National Assembly & Others, in which the Court affirmed its jurisdiction over alleged constitutional violations by the legislature.
Drawing further parallels with constitutional jurisprudence in Ghana, Mr. Fatty referenced Alexander Afenyo-Markin v. Speaker of Parliament & Attorney General and Justice Abdulai v. Attorney General, in which Ghana’s highest court ruled that parliamentary procedures are not immune from judicial review when they conflict with constitutional requirements.
“Like Ghana, The Gambia operates under constitutional supremacy,” he said. “The idea that parliamentary processes are beyond the reach of judicial scrutiny no longer holds.”
Mr. Fatty also emphasized the mandatory nature of the word “shall” in Section 152(1), arguing that it imposes a legal duty on the executive to meet the submission deadline, and that failure to comply constitutes a violation of the Constitution.
The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration from the Supreme Court that the National Assembly’s acceptance of the budget was unlawful, and that any actions taken as a result of that submission be deemed null and void.
The case is being closely watched by legal observers and civil society organizations, as it tests the boundaries of executive and legislative authority and could set a significant precedent for constitutional governance in The Gambia.
A date for the Supreme Court’s ruling has not yet been announced.