By: Kexx Sanneh
Chief Justice Hassan B. Jallow today dismissed a preliminary objection raised by the State in the constitutional lawsuit filed by former Auditor General Modou Ceesay, clearing the way for the substantive hearing scheduled to begin on Wednesday, 3 December 2025.
The ruling centred on a Notice of Preliminary Objection filed on 13 November 2025 by the Attorney General and the Inspector General of Police, who argued that Mr Ceesay’s 25-paragraph Reply to the State’s Statement of Defence was not contemplated under the Supreme Court Rules and contained irrelevant material.
Delivering the decision, Chief Justice Jallow held that the absence of an express provision in the Rules does not deprive the court of its inherent power to regulate its own procedure and guarantee a fair hearing. “The court retains the authority to issue orders necessary to ensure due process,” the Chief Justice ruled, declaring the objection inadmissible.
However, noting that Mr Ceesay’s Reply was “very lengthy and detailed”, the court, in the interest of justice, granted the defendants leave to file a rejoinder if they deemed it necessary.
Mr Ceesay, represented by a legal team led by senior counsel Lamin J Darboe, had filed the Reply on 10 November 2025 in compliance with a court order dated 14 October 2025.
The underlying suit, lodged on 3 October 2025, invokes the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction and names the Attorney General (1st defendant), the Inspector General of Police (2nd defendant), and Cherno Amadou Sowe (3rd defendant) as respondents.
Mr Ceesay is seeking declarations that his forcible removal from the National Audit Office premises by police officers acting on state instructions was unlawful, null, and void. He contends the action violated sections 158, 159, 160, and 169 of the 1997 Constitution as well as several provisions of the National Audit Office Act, 2015, which guarantee the Auditor General’s security of tenure and institutional independence.
The former Auditor General further alleges that the removal was retaliatory, following his refusal of a ministerial appointment and his refusal to delay or interfere with audits of public institutions.
The State, represented by Solicitor General Hussein Thomasi and a team of government lawyers, maintains that Mr Ceesay effectively vacated his post by accepting nomination as a minister – an argument the plaintiff strongly disputes.
With the preliminary hurdle cleared, the case – widely regarded as a landmark test of executive authority versus the constitutional independence of the Auditor General’s office – will proceed to a full hearing later this week.
