By: Sainabou Sambou
In a dramatic escalation of one of The Gambia’s most high-profile constitutional cases, the government has formally challenged former Auditor General Modou Ceesay’s computation of D15,815,425.76 in compensation, pushing the long-running dispute back before the Supreme Court for fresh arguments and evidence.
The latest filings come just weeks after the apex court delivered a landmark ruling declaring Ceesay’s removal from office unconstitutional, a decision that sent shockwaves through the public service and raised fresh questions about accountability, executive power, and the state’s financial liabilities.
Ceesay, who served as Auditor General from late 2022, submitted the detailed compensation claim in compliance with a court directive. The sum covers salaries, allowances, gratuity, and other benefits he argues are due following his unlawful dismissal. In addition, the Supreme Court had already awarded him D4 million in vindicatory damages for the violation of his rights.
In an affidavit filed at the Supreme Court, Ceesay maintained that his calculations were meticulously prepared based on entitlements attached to the office. He described the D15.8 million figure as a straightforward reflection of what the position commands under the law.
However, the government is pushing back hard. The Attorney General, the Inspector General of Police, and senior government lawyer Cherno Alieu Sowe have filed a Notice of Motion seeking to reopen arguments on the financial awards. They contend that Ceesay’s original constitutional suit focused primarily on declaratory relief regarding the legality of his removal and did not explicitly claim specific monetary entitlements such as salaries, pensions, or gratuity.
Crucially, the defendants argue that the parties never fully addressed Section 5(2) of the Constitution, the provision the Supreme Court ultimately relied upon to make the financial orders. In a supporting affidavit sworn by Senior State Counsel Abdoulie Badjie, the government insists it must be allowed to present further evidence and make detailed submissions on this point.
“Determining the accurate financial entitlements requires proper verification of employment and financial records held across several government institutions,” the affidavit states. Officials have so far secured only two payslips, with efforts ongoing to retrieve additional documentation needed for a precise calculation.
The government also provided background on Ceesay’s tenure: appointed by the President on 14 November 2022 and assumed office on 26 November 2022. It highlighted provisions in the National Audit Office Act that cap the Auditor General’s tenure at nine years and noted that Ceesay would not have reached statutory retirement age before the end of that term.
On the issue of gratuity and pension, the government emphasized that these benefits are payable only upon retirement and require approval from the relevant board, following consultation with the President. The affidavit further pointed out that salaries are subject to tax deductions and referenced a September 2025 payslip showing an outstanding debt of D144,266 owed by Ceesay to the National Audit Office.
Beyond contesting the computation itself, the government is requesting more time to effect any eventual payment. It argues that disbursing substantial public funds requires securing budgetary appropriations in line with the Constitution and public finance laws. This process cannot realistically be completed within the 60-day window previously contemplated by the court.
Legal observers say the development underscores the complexities of enforcing monetary judgments against the state. While the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling affirmed constitutional protections for independent institutions like the Auditor General’s office, the practicalities of compensation now test the boundaries between judicial authority and fiscal governance.
The case has drawn significant public attention, coming amid broader discussions on good governance, the independence of oversight bodies, and the rule of law in post-2021 Gambia. Ceesay’s removal had been widely criticized by transparency advocates who viewed it as an attempt to weaken anti-corruption mechanisms.
The Supreme Court is now expected to review Ceesay’s compensation breakdown alongside the government’s objections. Justices will decide whether to allow additional evidence, hear further submissions on the constitutional provision in question, and determine a realistic timeline for any payments.
The matter has been adjourned to next Tuesday, when lawyers for both sides will return to court to argue their positions. The outcome could set important precedents not only for this case but for future disputes involving public office holders and the financial consequences of unconstitutional actions by the executive.
