By: Kexx Sanneh
The Attorney General’s Chambers has asked the Supreme Court to recuse four justices, including Chief Justice Edrissa Faal, from a constitutional challenge to Faal’s appointment.
The Gambia Bar Association, through trustees Neneh M. C. Cham, Abdoulie Fatty and Nyima Samateh, sued the Attorney General and Faal, arguing that his appointment fails the qualifications in Section 139 of the 1997 Constitution. The Association wants the appointment declared unconstitutional and void, and any payments to Faal refunded.
Principal State Counsel Patrick Gomez filed a motion seeking the recusal of Chief Justice Faal, Justice Cherno S. Jallow, Justice Omar M. M. Njie and Justice Awa Bah, and asking that other justices hear the case.
The State says Faal cannot sit on a case attacking his own appointment. It argues Justice Jallow, the most senior sitting justice after the Chief Justice, would be the likely successor if Faal’s appointment were voided, giving him a direct interest. Justice Njie sat on the Judicial Service Commission on 9 June and 1 July 2026 when it considered Faal’s qualifications and recommended him. Justice Bah has been appointed to the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice for 2026–2030 and is due to take up duties in October 2026, which the State says creates a conflict.
An affidavit by Fatou Waggeh of the Attorney General’s Chambers cites JSC minutes and an ECOWAS communiqué supporting those claims.
The Bar Association does not oppose Faal’s recusal and accepts Njie’s JSC membership only in limited terms. It opposes recusal of Jallow and Bah, saying seniority alone does not decide who becomes Chief Justice — Faal himself was appointed from outside the sitting bench — and that neither Jallow’s rank nor Bah’s ECOWAS posting shows personal interest or bias.
The Association also objects that asking the Court to name a substitute panel in advance is premature: no panel has been constituted, no hearing date set, and no quorum problem has arisen. It calls that part of the motion an abuse of process.
The State has separately challenged the Association’s standing, arguing its constitution does not authorize trustees to sue and that the reliefs sought are not justiciable. The Association sought an accelerated hearing; the State opposed that as unnecessary.
The Supreme Court Registrar said the matter will be dealt with after vacation, in line with the Court’s rules.
