By Sirrah Touray
The Gambia Law Society has come out in full support of the appointment of Chief Justice Idrissa MO Faal, in a marked departure from the position held by Gambia Bar Association which has said he is not constitutionally qualified for the job, and has since challenged it in court.
At a press conference yesterday, Lawyer Lamin Mboge said the Society “respectfully holds a different view” and believes the appointment followed constitutional process. “Our disagreement is one of constitutional interpretation and not of personalities, politics or allegiance,” Mboge told journalists, adding that “reasonable lawyers approaching the same provisions may sometimes arrive at different interpretations.’
The key difference between the two bodies centres on Section 139 of the 1997 Constitution, which asks whether a nominee from a non-Commonwealth jurisdiction qualifies for the job. While the Bar Association argues that the phrase “common law country” excludes the United States, the Law Society disagrees.
Lawyer Mboge argued that the US legal system meets and in many areas exceeds common law standards. He also noted that Dr Faal is enrolled to practice in The Gambia, has paid practicing fees, and has worked as a solicitor here.
Mboge further defended the role of the Judicial Service Commission, which he said reviewed the nominee’s credentials. The Commission, he said, is chaired by retired Chief Justice Hassan Jallow and includes the Solicitor General representing the Attorney General, a senior member of the Bar, a retired senior civil servant, and a Supreme Court judge.
“Having considered the circumstances and the role performed by the JSC, we are satisfied the appointee met the applicable constitutional requirements,” Mboge said.
He urged respect for the office pending a final ruling, as the matter is now before the Supreme Court. “A constitutional challenge should not by itself be treated as a determination that the appointment is unconstitutional.”
Mboge said the Law Society’s stance is rooted in its constitutional duty. “Our disagreement is therefore one of constitutional interpretation and not of personalities, politics or allegiance,” he stated. “We state our position respectfully, independently and in the firm belief that professional diversity of thought expressed with civility and fidelity to the law strengthens rather than diminishes the legal profession.”
Citing Section 4(1)(a) of the GLS Constitution, he added that the Society must “maintain and defend the integrity and independence of the Bar and the judiciary.” With the matter now before the Supreme Court, Mboge said “the appropriate forum for the authoritative resolution of the constitutional questions raised is the Supreme Court itself,” and that the Society will continue to defend both the appointment and the Constitution.