Darboe Warns IGP Against Serving Political Interests After Supreme Court Rules Ex-Auditor General’s Removal Unconstitutional

By Makutu Manneh

Senior Counsel Lamin J. Darboe has urged the Inspector General of Police to recognize that the office is established to serve the Constitution rather than the interests of any president, following a Supreme Court ruling that found the removal of former Auditor General Modou Ceesay violated his constitutional rights.

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday after the judgment, Darboe, who represented Ceesay in the constitutional suit against the Inspector General of Police and the Government, said the ruling should serve as a reminder that public officials are accountable to the law.

“The IGP needs to understand that he is not in that office for the President, for any President,” Darboe said. “But if they don’t understand that, then those kinds of damages could be imposed against the IGP and the government.”

The Supreme Court ruled that Ceesay’s removal from office was unconstitutional. While the court declined to order his reinstatement, it directed that he continue to receive his salary and allowances until his mandatory retirement in 2031. The court also awarded him D4 million in damages, to be paid within 60 days.

Darboe said the judgment reinforced the constitutional protections afforded to holders of independent public offices, arguing that a president cannot lawfully remove such officials simply because of disagreement with their decisions or conduct.

He also noted that financial awards arising from constitutional violations are ultimately borne by taxpayers rather than the officials whose actions gave rise to the litigation.

“Those damages are not paid by the IGP or the police service,” he said. “They are paid from the National Treasury.”

Darboe described that outcome as regrettable, saying public funds should not be used to settle liabilities resulting from unlawful actions by senior government officials.

He also rejected the argument that Ceesay had voluntarily resigned from office, maintaining that the former Auditor General had instead been unlawfully removed.

“We reject the position that the President has the right to do that,” Darboe said. “We reject the position, and of course the court rejects that as well, that he resigned; he didn’t; he was moved forcefully from his office.”