Supreme Court Hears Legal Challenge to Presidential Amnesty Powers Under Inquiry (Amendment) Act

Lawyer Lamin J Darboe and his clients at the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court of The Gambia has begun hearing a constitutional challenge filed by the Coalition of Progressive Gambia and Kemeseng Sanneh against the Attorney General and the Clerk of the National Assembly. The case contests the legality of the Inquiry (Amendment) Act, 2023, which grants the President authority to issue amnesties to individuals disqualified from holding public office by commissions of inquiry.

The applicants argue that Sections 19, 20, and 21 of the amended Act are inconsistent with Sections 200 to 206 of the 1997 Constitution, which outline the scope and authority of commissions of inquiry and define the limits of executive power. They claim the National Assembly exceeded its legislative mandate by enacting provisions that compromise the binding nature and integrity of commission findings.

The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the contested provisions are ultra vires, unconstitutional, and therefore null and void.

During the hearing, Senior Counsel Lamin J. Darboe, representing the plaintiffs, informed the court of a motion filed on March 21, 2025, requesting leave to file their statement of claim outside the prescribed time limit. He noted that the application was supported by a 12-paragraph affidavit sworn to by Ebrima Chatty and relied on all contents therein.

Chief Justice Hassan B. Jallow questioned the justification for granting the extension, asking, “Why should the court grant the orders you requested?” In response, Counsel Darboe emphasized the public interest and the importance of justice in the matter, urging the court to permit the late filing. While the Chief Justice cautioned against using “public interest” as a blanket excuse for procedural lapses, he accepted the explanation and granted leave for the motion to proceed.

Prior to moving the motion, the Court highlighted an inconsistency in the court filings. The heading of the document listed the Clerk of the National Assembly as the first defendant, while the body referred to the Ministry of Justice. Counsel Darboe acknowledged the error and requested to amend paragraphs 3 and 4 of the document. The State raised no objection, and the court granted the motion for amendment.

Another procedural issue arose when Counsel Darboe sought to amend what he referred to as the “amended statement of case.” State Counsel Wakawa objected, pointing out that the original statement had been struck out, and no amended version had been submitted to the court. Counsel Darboe accepted the clarification and revised his application to amend the “statement of case” instead. The court approved the amendment.

The case was adjourned to April 10, 2025, to allow the State to file its reply. The court accepted the amended filings as part of the proceedings.