Supreme Court Petitioned Over National Assembly’s Handling of 2025 Budget Approval

Four Gambian citizens: Sait Matty Jaw, Madi Jobarteh, Pa Samba Jow, and Babucarr Nyang, have filed a lawsuit at the Supreme Court, challenging the conduct of the National Assembly in approving the 2025 budget. The suit lists the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Minister of Finance and Economic Affairs, and the Attorney General as defendants.

The plaintiffs are seeking a determination from the Supreme Court regarding whether section 152 of the Constitution (as amended) grants the National Assembly, through the Speaker, the authority to permit the late submission of the 2025 Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure by the Minister of Finance. According to the Constitution, the budget must be presented at least 60 days before the end of the financial year.

The case references sections 5(1)(a) and (b), 94, 127(1), and 152 of the 1997 Constitution, along with section 21 of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act and Order 8 of the Assembly’s Standing Orders. The plaintiffs are requesting the Court to declare the late submission of the budget unconstitutional, nullify all related proceedings, and affirm that such delays have no legal effect.

The plaintiffs argue that their action is grounded in section 5(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution, which empowers citizens to protect its provisions. They describe themselves as advocates for the rule of law, democracy, and good governance.

In their case statement, the plaintiffs allege that the Minister of Finance appeared before the National Assembly on November 15, 2024, to table the 2025 budget. The Minister attributed the delay to ongoing negotiations with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, causing him to miss the constitutionally mandated deadline. This sparked heated debates among lawmakers.

The Speaker of the National Assembly ruled that section 152(1) of the Constitution does not explicitly compel the Assembly to reject a late budget submission or specify penalties for missing the deadline. The Speaker stated that the Assembly’s duty under section 152(1A) is to consider the estimates within the time frame prescribed, even if they were tabled late.

Following consultations with Assembly leadership, the Speaker ruled that the apology from the Minister allowed the formal tabling of the budget despite its lateness. Consequently, the National Assembly proceeded to approve the 2025 Appropriation Bill on December 16, 2024.

The plaintiffs contend that the Speaker acted beyond her authority by allowing the late submission, thereby violating section 152 of the Constitution as amended by the 2023 Constitution (Amendment) Act. They argue that the Speaker’s decision undermines constitutional safeguards and necessitates judicial review.

The lawsuit calls on the Supreme Court to:

1. Declare the late submission unconstitutional, illegal, and null and void.

2. Nullify any decisions or actions related to the 2025 budget taken by the National Assembly or other authorities.

3. Confirm that proceedings tied to a budget submitted outside the constitutional timeframe lack legal effect.

The plaintiffs maintain that their challenge is critical to upholding the rule of law and ensuring accountability in public governance.