By Kexx Sanneh
The high-stakes constitutional showdown between sacked Auditor General Modou Ceesay and the Gambian State escalated further today as the former auditor fiercely resisted attempts to strike out his reply to the defendants’ statement of case.
In a sharply worded brief of argument filed this morning by his lead counsel, Lamin J. Darbo, Ceesay urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the State’s Notice of Objection dated 12 November 2025 as “frivolous and utterly lacking merit.”
The State, represented by the Solicitor General on behalf of the Attorney General and the Inspector General of Police (1st and 2nd defendants), wants the court to expunge Ceesay’s Reply to Defendants’ Statement of Case filed on 10 November. The objection raises four grounds: that the Supreme Court Rules make no provision for such a reply; that it introduces new and unnecessary issues; that it lacks a verifying affidavit; and that paragraph 19 is unclear, irrelevant, and overly lengthy.
Counsel Darbo countered each point systematically. He argued that the reply is not a fresh statement of the case requiring verification under Rules 46(2)(a) and 48(2)(a), but merely a response to the defendants’ version of events. “A literal interpretation of the rules cannot stand for the proposition they proffered,” Darbo submitted.
On the accusation of raising new matters, Darbo insisted the reply only addresses issues triggered by the State’s own pleadings, particularly “mere denials” that required clarification to place the full facts before the court.
The most heated dispute centres on paragraph 19 of Ceesay’s reply – a nearly two-page section the State branded “difficult to respond to.” Darbo defended its length, explaining it directly rebuts paragraph 25 of the defendants’ statement, which denied that President Barrow sent anyone “to beg the Plaintiff for anything.” The paragraph, Darbo stressed, tackles a “pivotal issue central to understanding what drove the defendants’ reaction.”
Darbo also affirmed that Seedy Keita, who swore supporting affidavits, is fully competent to do so, given his central role in the events leading to Ceesay’s forceful eviction from the National Audit Office.
The underlying suit challenges the legality of Ceesay’s removal after he publicly rejected a ministerial appointment. He accuses the Attorney General and police of violating the 1997 Constitution and the National Audit Office Act, 2015, when officers forcibly ejected him from his office. The State maintains that Ceesay voluntarily vacated the post by accepting the Cabinet position.
With both sides now fully engaged on procedural as well as substantive grounds, the Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on whether Ceesay’s reply will stand – a decision that could significantly shape the trajectory of this closely watched constitutional battle.
