By Kexx Sanneh
The State has submitted a robust defense in the high-profile Supreme Court lawsuit filed by former Auditor General Modou Ceesay against the Attorney General and the Inspector General of Police (IGP). The case, which challenges the circumstances surrounding Ceesay’s departure from his statutory role, has sparked intense public interest amid allegations of executive overreach and institutional interference.
Filed on October 20, 2025, the defense is backed by an affidavit from Mod K. Ceesay, Chief of Staff and Minister of Presidential Affairs. In it, he confirms his authorization to represent the defendants and verifies the accuracy of the 34-paragraph document based on his knowledge and belief.
At the heart of the State’s argument is the assertion that Modou Ceesay was never removed from office by the President. Instead, the defense claims he voluntarily relinquished the position upon accepting a ministerial appointment. “The Plaintiff ceased to be Auditor General on September 10, 2025,” September 10 emphasizing that Ceesay’s transition was seamless and consensual.
According to the defense, on September 10, 2025, Ceesay accepted the role of Minister of Trade, Industry, Regional Integration, and Employment during a meeting with the President. He was reportedly “very appreciative,” and the President praised his expertise in finance, investment, and public-sector operations. The defendants note that Ceesay has yet to decline the offer in writing formally. Concurrently, Cherno Amadou Sowe was appointed as the new Auditor General on the same date, but Sowe could not assume duties because Ceesay allegedly refused to vacate the office.
The defense categorically rejects claims of presidential interference in audits. It maintains a strict policy of non-interference with independent office-holders. Regarding Ceesay’s inability to audit the National Food Security and Processing and Marketing Company, the State attributes this to banking confidentiality laws. A senior official reportedly complained that Ceesay attempted to access personal bank accounts without authorization, in violation of the Banking Act.
Similarly, demands for the full taxpayer database from the revenue authority were resisted to prevent data compromise, in line with the Income and Value Added Tax Act. The defense denies any forcible eviction, insisting neither the President nor the IGP ordered Ceesay’s removal from his office.
The defendants raise concerns about Ceesay’s conduct during his tenure, though details remain sealed in the filing. They admit constitutional grounds for removing an Auditor General exist, but insist they were not invoked here.
In the Supreme Court, the defense poses two key legal questions: Was the Plaintiff ever removed from his position as Auditor General by the President? And could the Plaintiff properly remain Auditor General after Cherno Amadou Sowe’s appointment, following his own ministerial role?
The State will rely on Sections 158, 159, 160, and 169 of the 1987 Constitution, the National Audit Act of 2015, the Banking Act, and the Income and Value Added Tax Act. Supporting documents include appointment letters, acceptance records, a State House media release, and a post from What’s On-Gambia.
Ceesay’s suit alleges unlawful dismissal and interference, seeking reinstatement or damages. The case underscores tensions between executive appointments and constitutional independence. A hearing date is pending. Legal experts predict a landmark ruling on public office transitions.
