The State, represented by the Solicitor General and Legal Secretary, has filed a formal objection in the civil litigation initiated by former Auditor General Modou Ceesay before the Supreme Court. The application asks the apex court to strike out Ceesay’s reply to the defendants’ statement of case, describing it as procedurally improper and legally deficient.
Ceesay instituted the suit against the Attorney General, the Inspector General of Police, and Cherno Alieu Sowe—cited as the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants—challenging what he describes as his unlawful and forceful removal from office as Auditor General.
In a “Brief of Argument on Notice of Objection” dated 12 November 2025, the 1st and 2nd defendants contend that Ceesay’s reply should be struck out in whole or in part. They argue that the filing violates Supreme Court procedural rules and improperly introduces new matters.
The State’s objection is premised on four key arguments:
- No Legal Basis for Filing a Reply:
The Solicitor General argues that the Supreme Court Rules do not provide for the filing of a reply to a defendant’s statement of case. He submits that the plaintiff’s reply is unnecessary and raises issues outside the scope of the constitutional questions before the court. - Lack of Required Verification:
The State contends that the reply is incompetent because it was not verified by an affidavit as required under Rules 46(2)(a) and 46(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules. According to the Solicitor General, any unverified statement of case cannot be relied upon as evidence or considered by the court. - Introduction of New Issues and Annexures:
The Solicitor General further asserts that the plaintiff’s reply improperly introduces new matters—such as references to annexed documents like an audit report—that are unnecessary for the constitutional interpretation being sought, thereby complicating the proceedings. - Unclear and Irrelevant Paragraphs:
Particular exception was taken to Paragraph 19 of the reply, which spans nearly two pages. The Solicitor General describes it as unclear, irrelevant, and difficult to respond to, arguing that it should be struck out.
In light of these objections, the Solicitor General has urged the Supreme Court to rule on whether the entire reply should be struck out for non-compliance with the court’s rules.
Alternatively, should the court decide that only Paragraph 19 should be amended, the 1st and 2nd defendants have requested leave to file a rejoinder responding to any amended filing.