LAWYER DARBO SAYS RULING CONFIRMS PRESIDENT CANNOT REMOVE PEOPLE PROTECTED BY CONSTITUTION

A declaration by the Supreme Court that the removal from office of former auditor general Modou Ceesay was unlawful, has affirmed that constitutionally protected public officers cannot be removed outside the procedures laid down by law, so said Lawyer Lamin J Darbo, the plaintiff’s legal counsel.

Reacting to the landmark unanimous decision of the five-member apex court, the lawyer added that the case simply means that the president cannot remove constitutionally protected officers because he disagrees with them.

“From this decision it is clear that it is all complete nonsense to suggest that Modou Ceesay had resigned. He was forcefully removed from his office, and the court has rejected that position,” J Darbo told the waiting press.

But he expressed concern with the part of the ruling that stopped short of ordering the reinstatement of Ceesay.

“I know everybody wanted him to be reinstated, but the court said that is a difficult situation because the auditor general works very closely with government departments and the presidency and  given the relationship that exists, practically it would be impossible for him to be reinstated. We accept that as a reality,” the lawyer said.

Counsel J Darbo also welcomed the D4 million awarded to his client against the Attorney General and the Inspector General of Police, describing it as a strong reminder that public officials must act within the limits of the Constitution.

“I believe D4 million is substantial, but on the facts of this case, it is still not enough,” he said.

Counsel Darbo said the Inspector General of Police must understand that he is not in office for the president or any individual, but the constitution.

But he lamented that the money will come from the Consolidated Fund.

“It is unfortunate that taxpayers will bear the cost of the unlawful actions of senior officials,” the lawyer said.

The full decision
Delivered  by Justice OMM Njie on behalf of the five justices,  the court ruled that the action of police officers in removing Ceesay from his office in September 2025 violated Section 158 of the National Audit Act and was therefore null, void and of no legal effect.

Directives
The court therefore ordered the Attorney General and the Inspector General of Police to pay Modou Ceesay D4 million in vindicatory damages within 60 days for violating his constitutional rights.

It also directed the Attorney General to pay Ceesay all outstanding salaries and allowances owed to him from September 2025 to the date of judgment with 10 percent interest, as well as his salary and allowances from the date of judgment until the expiry of his tenure or his retirement, whichever comes first.

To facilitate the computation of the payments, all parties were ordered to file affidavits within seven days detailing Ceesay’s age, salary, allowances, pension entitlements and gratuity.

Justice Njie argued that while Ceesay had not specifically asked to be returned to office, the court still had the discretion to consider reinstatement.

“However, the court found that the strained relationship between Ceesay and the Executive made such an order impractical, given the nature of the Auditor General’s office, which requires close institutional engagement with government ministries and departments,” the judge said.

The court consequently ordered that Mr Ceesay’s successor Cherno Amadou Sowe remain Auditor General.

Background
The case stemmed from events in September 2025 after President Adama Barrow appointed the former auditor general as Minister of Trade, but Ceesay maintained that he never accepted the appointment and later, police officers arrived at the National Audit Office and removed him from his office.

The government argued before the Supreme Court that Ceesay had effectively ceased to hold office following his ministerial appointment and denied that he had been unlawfully removed.

Ceesay challenged that position, insisting that the Auditor General is a constitutionally protected office holder who can only be removed through procedures prescribed by the Constitution and the National Audit Act.