By: Sainabou Sambou
The Supreme Court of The Gambia has ruled that Finance Minister Seedy Keita violated the 1997 Constitution by submitting the 2025 Budget Estimates late, rejecting his defense that ongoing negotiations with the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) justified the delay.
In a landmark judgment delivered by Justice E.F. M’Bai, the Court declared the late submission a clear breach of Section 152(1), which mandates that the President cause the Minister of Finance to lay estimates of revenue and expenditure before the National Assembly at least 60 days before the end of the financial year. The estimates were tabled only six weeks prior, missing the deadline.
The case was brought by prominent civil society activists Sait Matty Jaw, Madi Jobarteh, Pa Samba Jow, and Baboucarr Nyang, represented by Counsels A. Fatty and Salieu Taal. The plaintiffs sued the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Minister of Justice, and the Finance Minister, arguing the delay undermined constitutional accountability.
During hearings, Minister Keita admitted the tardiness but cited external consultations as the cause. The Court firmly rejected this, stating: “The said consultations do not provide a legal justification for not tabling the budget estimates on time.” It emphasized that executive convenience or international negotiations cannot override constitutional obligations.
The Court also addressed the National Assembly’s role. When the late submission occurred, some members, including Alhagie S. Darboe, objected, but the Speaker invoked Standing Order 8 to proceed, citing the Assembly’s procedural autonomy under Section 108.
While affirming the supremacy of the Constitution (Section 4) and rejecting attempts to shield the action from judicial review, the Court distinguished the executive’s violation from the legislature’s duties. Under Section 152(1A), the Assembly is “duty-bound to act on the budget estimates within thirty days” once presented, even if late.
Crucially, the plaintiffs strategically abandoned requests to nullify the approved budget, stating they had “no desire to shut down government processes but to hold government to account.” The Court noted this abandonment made it unnecessary to invalidate the Appropriation Bill, passed on December 16, 2024.
“The contravention by the Executive did not preclude the Legislature from doing its work,” the judgment read.
Legal experts hail the ruling as reinforcing constitutional discipline without disrupting governance. It sends a strong message to future administrations about the importance of timely compliance while upholding the 2025 Budget’s legality.
