Prominent human rights advocate and founder of the Edward Francis Small Center for Rights and Justice, Madi Jobarteh, has issued a sharp rebuttal to Mai Ahmad Fatty, leader of the Gambia Moral Congress (GMC), over his defense of President Barrow’s controversial removal of Auditor General Modou Ceesay.
In a detailed rejoinder, Jobarteh accused Fatty of misapplying the legal principle of Estoppel to justify what he calls an unconstitutional act, warning that such arguments undermine the rule of law and mislead both the President and the public.
The controversy stems from an open letter by Halifa Sallah, a respected political figure who criticized the removal of Auditor General Modou Ceesay. In it, Sallah cited the 1997 Constitution’s provisions on the security of tenure for the Auditor General and argued that the President lacked the authority to abrogate these constitutional protections.
In response, Fatty, a key ally of President Barrow, issued a rejoinder claiming the removal was legal, invoking the principle of Estoppel. Fatty argued that Ceesay’s alleged acceptance of a ministerial position triggered Estoppel, binding him to the decision and rendering the removal lawful.
Jobarteh’s rejoinder dismantles Fatty’s argument, asserting that Estoppel cannot override the Constitution, which he describes as the supreme law of the land. “The basic premise of Mai Ahmad Fatty’s argument that just because the Auditor General Modou Ceesay accepted the ministerial offer, therefore the principle of Estoppel applies, is to say Modou Ceesay’s words are superior to the 1997 Constitution,” Jobarteh stated. He further noted that Fatty provided no evidence to support the claim that Ceesay accepted the offer, pointing out that Ceesay himself had denied any verbal or written acceptance.
Explaining the principle of Estoppel, Jobarteh clarified that it is an equitable doctrine in contract and administrative law designed to ensure fairness by preventing a party from reneging on a promise or representation relied upon by another to their detriment.
Administrative law overlaps with the doctrine of legitimate expectation, protecting individuals from sudden or unfair changes in government policy.
However, Jobarteh emphasized that Estoppel has limitations when applied to public authorities, particularly when it risks enabling unlawful actions. “Estoppel cannot compel a public authority to do something unlawful,” he said, adding that constitutional provisions always take precedence.
Jobarteh argued that the appointment and removal of the Auditor General are governed by the 1997 Constitution, which supersedes any offer, redeployment, or acceptance, whether by the President or Ceesay. “Both the President and Modou Ceesay cannot and should not violate the Constitution regardless of what they offered or accepted,” he stated. He stressed that constitutional obligations serve the public interest, not individual agreements, and courts consistently hold that Estoppel cannot “legalize” unconstitutional actions.
The rights advocate accused Fatty of misleading the President and the public by misapplying the Doctrine of Estoppel to justify an act that violates the Constitution. He echoed Sallah’s position, supported by legal experts and civil society organizations, that the Constitution provides clear grounds for the Auditor General’s appointment and removal, which individual actions or agreements cannot bypass. “To claim such means to state that the AG’s words supersede the 1997 Constitution,” Jobarteh said.
In a call to action, Jobarteh urged Fatty to retract his “misguided rejoinder” and uphold the rule of law, warning against enabling “abuse of power, poor leadership, unconstitutionality, and corruption” in The Gambia. He emphasized the importance of defending public interest and constitutional integrity over political alliances.
