Former Auditor General’s Cross-Examination Ends as State Calls Protocol Witnesses

By Fatou Touray Last updated Dec 16, 2025

The cross-examination of Modou Ceesay, the former Auditor General, concluded on Tuesday at the Supreme Court, setting the stage for the state to present witnesses whose testimony directly challenged his assertion that he promptly rejected a ministerial appointment offered by President Adama Barrow.

The state called two officials from the Office of the President: Alhagie Ousman Ceesay, the Chief of Protocol, and Wuday Ceesay, a protocol officer at State House. Both testified that Mr. Ceesay accepted the appointment during a meeting with the president on Sept. 10, 2025, a claim Mr. Ceesay has repeatedly denied.

During cross-examination by state counsel Ida Drammeh, Mr. Ceesay was questioned extensively about his correspondence with government institutions, his understanding of appointment procedures, and his allegations of presidential interference in audit matters.

Ms. Drammeh pressed Mr. Ceesay on a letter from the Gambia Revenue Authority dated Sept. 1, 2025, which was admitted into evidence, as well as a What’s On Gambia publication that had previously been tendered before the court. Mr. Ceesay said he could not recall the specific publication, citing the volume of similar materials circulated at the time.

The questioning also focused on whether Mr. Ceesay had copied the Office of the President on certain audit communications. He acknowledged doing so in some cases but denied that it was to seek presidential intervention, saying instead that it was appropriate when issues affected the presidency.

Ms. Drammeh further challenged Mr. Ceesay’s claims that the president had instructed him to halt an audit for political reasons. Mr. Ceesay maintained that the president had made such remarks on multiple occasions, a position the state disputes.

At the heart of the exchange was the disputed ministerial appointment. Ms. Drammeh put it to Mr. Ceesay that he had accepted the appointment and later changed his mind. Mr. Ceesay rejected that characterization, insisting that he never accepted the offer and that he formally rejected it after receiving the appointment letter.

After the cross-examination concluded, the state called its first witness, Alhagie Ousman Ceesay, Chief of Protocol to the President, who testified about events at State House on Sept. 10, 2025.

He told the court that on that day, the president made several appointments and reassignments, including within the Ministries of Trade and Defense. According to his account, Babucarr Joof was reassigned to the Ministry of Defense, while Modou Ceesay was ushered into the president’s office for a separate discussion.

Mr. Ceesay testified that shortly after those meetings, the president informed him by phone that both individuals had accepted their appointments and instructed that a press release be issued. Appointment letters for Modou Ceesay and Cherno Alieu Sowe, who was named Auditor General, were subsequently released to the media.

Under questioning, the Chief of Protocol explained that, as a matter of procedure, an appointment letter is issued only after a discussion with the president and acceptance by the appointee. He said he was unaware of any instance in which a letter was handed over before acceptance.

He also rejected claims that the president had sought to interfere with audits, saying that since he began working with the president in 2017, he had never witnessed such conduct.

During cross-examination by counsel for the plaintiff, Lamin J. Darboe, the Chief of Protocol acknowledged that the appointment envelope given to Modou Ceesay was not sealed, but emphasized that the contents would have been known following the president’s discussion with the appointee.

Mr. Darboe put it to the witness that the appointment had been rejected the following day. The Chief of Protocol said he became aware of any rejection only through social media and not through official channels.

The state’s second witness, Wuday Ceesay, a protocol officer at State House, testified that she personally interacted with Modou Ceesay on the day of the appointment.

She told the court that she escorted him into the president’s office and later saw him leave, appearing happy. According to her testimony, Mr. Ceesay told her that he had been appointed Minister of Trade, prompting her to congratulate him.

Under cross-examination, Mr. Darboe questioned her description of Mr. Ceesay’s demeanor, suggesting that her interpretation of his happiness was subjective. Ms. Ceesay maintained that he was smiling and that he had told her directly about the appointment.

After brief additional questioning, she was discharged.

With the conclusion of witness testimony, the Supreme Court directed the parties to file briefs and replies on points of law. The case was adjourned to the next court term for further proceedings.

Below, we reproduce the witness examinations and cross-examinations verbatim.

Counsel I. Drammeh: It’s correct that the Gambia Revenue Authority sent you a letter dated 1st September 2025.

Modou Ceesay: Yes, but I can’t remember the date.

(The letter was confirmed and admitted into evidence.)

Counsel I. Drammeh: Please look at this What’s On Gambia publication.

Modou Ceesay: After carefully looking at the publication… I can’t remember the publication, as there were many What’s On – Gambia publications shared to many platforms.

(The publication was admitted into evidence already.)

Counsel I. Drammeh: Is it correct or not that you have the behavior of copying the office of the president on some audit issues?

Modou Ceesay: No, it depends on when there’s a need to copy.

Counsel I. Drammeh: When you say it depends, because you want the support of the president.

Modou Ceesay: No, maybe it has to do with the office ofthe president.

Counsel I. Drammeh: It’s correct that the office of the president isn’t the line ministry of GRA.

Modou Ceesay: Yes.

Counsel I. Drammeh: The line ministry of GRA is the Ministry of Finance.

Modou Ceesay: Yes.

Counsel I. Drammeh: It’s correct that the office of the president is copied because you need his intervention.

Modou Ceesay: No, I have given you a reason when the issue affects his office.

Counsel I. Drammeh: Are you familiar with the process of being appointed?

Modou Ceesay: No, I’m not.

Counsel I. Drammeh: Do you know that the chief of staff is a minister?

Modou Ceesay: Yes.

Counsel I. Drammeh: It is correct that the minister told you to delay the land audit until the land report to the National Assembly is done.

Modou Ceesay: That’s what he said, not only that.

Counsel I. Drammeh: You are related to the former chief of staff and Alhagie Badou Ceesay.

Modou Ceesay: Yes, but a long-distance relationship.

Counsel I. Drammeh: And because of your relationship with them, that’s why they came to talk to you.

Modou Ceesay: I don’t know that, but what they told me is that they are sent by the president.

Counsel I. Drammeh: It’s incorrect that the president told you to stop the audit because it will affect his election.

Modou Ceesay: He said that on several occasions.

Counsel I. Drammeh: I’m putting it to you that the Minister of Finance didn’t tell you that the matter was discussed in the cabinet.

Modou Ceesay: He told me.

Counsel I. Drammeh: I’m putting it to you that you have accepted the appointment and later changed your mind.

Modou Ceesay: No, I didn’t change my mind after I received the letter. I told the president I would get back to him, and I did, while rejecting the appointment.

Counsel I. Drammeh: I’m putting it to you that you have accepted the appointment.