The Gambia Bar Association (GBA) has demanded the immediate assignment and hearing of its constitutional challenge against Chief Justice Edi M.O. Faal’s appointment, expressing concern that the case remains unassigned more than three months after it was filed.
In a public statement dated November 9, 2026, the association said no substantive judicial step had been taken since it instituted proceedings on July 31, questioning the Chief Justice’s constitutional qualifications and eligibility.
The GBA said the case had neither been assigned to a single Supreme Court justice for directions nor placed before a full bench for hearing. Faal is named as the second defendant.
According to the association, its lawyers wrote to the Supreme Court Registrar on October 26 requesting urgent action. In an October 30 response, the Registrar confirmed that the file had been forwarded to the Chief Justice for directives, which would be communicated “if and when received”.
The association described that response as inadequate, arguing that the Chief Justice’s personal interest in the proceedings should prevent him from controlling their assignment, progression or determination.
It said the Registrar provided no hearing date and did not clarify whether any procedural requirements remained outstanding. A further letter from its lawyers, dated November 3, had received no response, according to the statement.
The GBA disclosed that the Attorney General had applied for the Chief Justice’s recusal and that it did not oppose the application. Both sides, it said, therefore agreed that he should not sit in the matter.
While acknowledging his general administrative authority as head of the Judiciary, the association argued that directing pending applications, deciding when a case is listed and constituting its panel influence how proceedings are heard.
A party to the proceedings should not exercise those functions, it maintained, invoking the principle that no person should be a judge in their own cause.
The association said it had expected procedural directions during the judicial vacation, allowing applications to be considered when courts resumed in October and enabling an expedited determination.
With the judicial term approaching its December conclusion, it warned that further delay could push the case into another term without any court appearance.
The circumstances, the GBA alleged, were creating a troubling perception that proceedings were being deliberately stalled. That allegation remains the association’s assessment of the delay.
It also claimed that several other recently filed cases, including matters involving urgent applications, faced similar delays.
The GBA called on the Judiciary to disclose whether directions had been issued and explain any failure to act. It demanded that an independent Supreme Court justice receive the file immediately for preliminary directions.
The association stressed that it sought no predetermined outcome and was commenting only on procedure and delay, leaving the merits for judicial determination.
It reserved the right to pursue appropriate relief over interference by any interested party and to take legitimate action if the case remained stalled.
The statement, issued by the GBA Executive Committee, warned that inaction risked undermining public confidence in the administration of justice.
