The Supreme Court of The Gambia has ruled that the Minister of Finance and Economic Affairs violated the Constitution when he failed to present the government’s 2025 budget estimates within the time mandated by law.
In a decision issued this week, the Court found that the minister submitted the draft Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure only six weeks before the end of the financial year—missing the constitutional requirement that they be laid before the National Assembly at least 60 days in advance.
The suit was brought by civil society advocates Sait Matty Jaw, Madi Jobarteh, Coach-Pasamba Jow, and Baboucarr Nyang. Represented by lawyers A. Fatty and Sal Taal, the plaintiffs argued that the delay amounted to a constitutional breach under Section 152(1) of the 1997 Constitution, which obliges the president to ensure timely submission.
During proceedings, the minister acknowledged the delay, attributing it to negotiations with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. But Justice E.F. M’Bai, writing for the Court, rejected that defence, saying such consultations offered “no legal justification” for failing to meet the deadline. Executive convenience, the judgment concluded, cannot override constitutional obligations.
Although the Court found that the minister acted unlawfully, it declined to invalidate the budget process. The Speaker of the National Assembly had permitted the late tabling of the estimates, citing Standing Order 8 and arguing that, absent an explicit constitutional penalty, the legislature could proceed.
The plaintiffs challenged that reasoning, asserting that neither the Speaker nor the Assembly could extend a constitutionally mandated period by procedural rules. The defendants countered that the legislature controls its own internal procedures under Section 108 of the Constitution and that the judiciary should not intervene.
The Supreme Court disagreed. While affirming the Assembly’s independence, it held that internal Standing Orders cannot be used to legitimize constitutional violations. At the same time, the Court drew a distinction between the minister’s breach and the Assembly’s duty to act once the estimates were submitted, even belatedly. Under Section 152(1A), the legislature must consider budget estimates within 30 days of their presentation.
“The contravention by the Executive did not preclude the Legislature from doing its work,” the Court held.
During the hearings, the plaintiffs withdrew their request for the 2025 budget to be declared null and void, stating they did not seek to disrupt government operations but wished to ensure constitutional compliance. As a result, the Court declined to rule on the validity of the Appropriation Bill passed by the Assembly on December 16, 2024.
In its final judgment, the Court declared that the Minister of Finance violated Section 152(1) of the Constitution and that negotiations with international financial institutions did not justify the late submission. The approved 2025 budget stands, but the ruling reinforces constitutional limits on executive discretion and affirms the judiciary’s authority to review budgetary procedures.