A group of lawyers under the Gambia Law Society has publicly endorsed the appointment of Edrissa M.O. Faal as Chief Justice, declaring him constitutionally eligible and supporting his continued service while a legal challenge proceeds.
In a statement issued on August 11, 2026, and read by Counsel L.K. Mboge, the Society said it had considered the circumstances of the appointment, including the role of the Judicial Service Commission. It concluded that the Commission had examined Faal’s eligibility and was satisfied he met the constitutional requirements before the appointment was made.
The Society attaches due significance to that institutional determination.
The position directly contrasts with that of the Gambia Bar Association, which on July 31 filed a constitutional challenge questioning whether Faal satisfies the qualifications under Section 139 of the 1997 Constitution. The Law Society’s stance has created a clear institutional split within Gambia’s legal profession, with two major organizations reaching opposite conclusions on the same issue.
The Society stressed that membership of the legal profession does not require unanimity. “The views advanced by some members of The Gambia Bar should not therefore be understood as representing the considered position of every lawyer in The Gambia,” the statement said. Professional independence permits disagreement when expressed with civility, restraint and respect for institutions.
It affirmed: “It is our considered view that the Chief Justice, Mr. Edrissa M.O. Faal, is eligible to hold the office to which he has been appointed, and we support his continuation in office in accordance with the Constitution and the laws of The Gambia, subject always to the ultimate determination of the Supreme Court.”
The Society described its position as neither political nor personal, and not directed against the Bar Association or any colleague who reached a different conclusion. Reasonable lawyers, it noted, may conscientiously arrive at differing interpretations of the same constitutional provisions. Such disagreement, conducted responsibly, is an attribute of an independent Bar rather than a weakness.
With the matter now before the Supreme Court, the Society said the Court is the appropriate forum for authoritative resolution. It expressed confidence that the issues will be considered objectively and decided according to the Constitution, the law and established principles of constitutional interpretation.
The statement closed by reaffirming commitment to the rule of law, judicial independence, institutional integrity and every lawyer’s right to independent professional judgment. Faal remains in office. No hearing date has yet been set for the Bar Association’s petition.
