Former Auditor General Files Supreme Court Lawsuit Over Alleged Unlawful Removal, Citing Constitutional Violations

Former Auditor General Modou Ceesay has filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court, challenging what he describes as the unlawful and unconstitutional nature of his removal from office. The suit names Attorney General Dawda A. Jallow as the first defendant and Inspector General of Police Seedy Mutarr Touray as the second defendant.

In the legal action, filed as a Writ to Invoke Original Jurisdiction, Ceesay identifies himself as a public officer serving as Auditor General at the National Audit Office (NAO). He alleges that officers of the Gambia Police Force forcibly removed him from the NAO premises, in direct violation of national law and his constitutional rights.

The suit contends that the actions of the Attorney General and the Inspector General of Police—in ordering the police to enter the NAO and effect his removal—contravened specific provisions of the 1997 Constitution, including sections 158, 159, 160, and 169.

Additionally, Ceesay asserts that these actions breach multiple provisions of the National Audit Office Act, 2015, notably sections 3(2), 11, 13, 14, and 16, which safeguard the structural independence of the NAO and outline the authority of the Auditor General. These provisions ensure the security of tenure and operational autonomy essential for the office’s role in ensuring public accountability and financial integrity.

Through the suit, Ceesay is seeking the following remedies:

A declaration that his forcible removal, ordered by the Attorney General and the Inspector General of Police, violated sections of the 1997 Constitution.

A declaration that such actions breached the National Audit Office Act, 2015.

A definitive declaration that his removal from office was unlawful, null, void, and without effect.

Any other orders the court deems just and appropriate.

Under the writ, both defendants are required to file their statements of defence within twenty-one days of receiving the plaintiff’s statement of case.

Legal observers say the case could become a landmark judicial review on the scope of executive power and the constitutional independence of the Auditor General’s office as a key oversight institution.