Gambia Bar Association Official Criticizes Delayed Release of Local Government Commission Report

By Seedy Jobe

The Secretary General of the Gambia Bar Association, Lawyer Abdoulie Fatty, has criticized the delayed publication of the Local Government Commission of Inquiry report, arguing that the handling of the process undermined fair hearing, transparency, and public confidence.

Mr. Fatty made the remarks during an interview on Kerr Fatou’s Race to State House program, where he explained the purpose, legal basis, and post-report obligations of commissions of inquiry in The Gambia.

He explained that the Commissions of Inquiry Act dates to 1903, having been passed during the colonial era and amended about two years ago. He added that the 1997 Constitution also empowers the President to establish commissions or committees of inquiry. Commissions of inquiry, he clarified, are not courts, though they exercise quasi-judicial powers. He described them as public investigative bodies that combine administrative and, to some extent, judicial functions in examining matters of public concern, most often those affecting the national treasury.

As examples, he cited the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission, which was established by an act of parliament to investigate human rights violations, and the Local Government Commission, which was set up to examine the conduct of local government councils.

Mr. Fatty stressed that local councils are not part of central government. He said they enjoy constitutional autonomy to manage their own affairs, collect rates and taxes, and administer markets and car parks. Because an inquiry into local councils directly affects local people, he argued, its work must be transparent. He noted that the Local Government Commission’s proceedings were not held in secret; they were broadcast live on television, with evidence presented publicly.

He then outlined the constitutional requirement that applies once a commission submits its report to the president. At the same time the report is presented, he said, anyone adversely mentioned must be notified of the findings and conclusions against them, along with the basis on which the commission reached them. The Constitution gives affected persons three months to appeal to the Court of Appeal, and the notification is intended to give them adequate time and material to challenge the findings.

Mr. Fatty, who said he is involved in the matter, claimed that those implicated received only a single sheet of paper containing one broad sentence of fewer than 20 words. According to him, the notice merely stated that the person had been mentioned for interfering in certain matters, without specifics or reference to evidence. He said it was so broad and vague that even he, as a lawyer, could not understand its meaning, and that to his knowledge it was all that was provided to those implicated around May 10 and 11.

He recalled that, sometime in the summer, the Minister for Local Government indicated in the media that the white paper would be published by the end of August. He said he welcomed that announcement because an early release would have allowed everyone to know the content of the report.

He emphasized that neither the President nor the Government owns the report. The commission was established on behalf of the people, he said, sovereignty derives from the people, and the commissioners exercised public power on their behalf. In his view, what the Government owns and controls is the white paper, its official response to the commission’s report, in which it states whether it agrees or disagrees with the findings and how it intends to implement them.

“What government owns and controls is the white paper that they are mandated to publish within six months of submission,” he said.

He questioned why a report submitted on May 10 or 11 was kept from the public for more than five months, until October 29, when the white paper and the report were finally released.

He argued that the one-sentence notice did not satisfy the mandatory constitutional requirement of notification, comparing the situation to a court delivering a judgment but withholding its reasoning, leaving the affected person unable to understand the basis of the decision or properly appeal. He said those who filed appeals did so mainly to prevent the three-month period from lapsing, without sufficient material to prepare their cases.

Asked whether he believed the delay was deliberate, Mr. Fatty said that whether intentional or by design, the conduct demonstrated bad faith that strikes at the foundation of commissions of enquiry. He cautioned that for Gambians to have faith in the independence, accountability, transparency and credibility of any such commission, they must believe the process will not be weaponized against people.

He also linked the timing to the electoral calendar, noting that the report was submitted about six months before nominations, while the white paper and report were published just days before nominations opened. He asked whether this demonstrated good faith or created an uneven playing field that favored one side at the expense of another. Such conduct, he warned, risks undermining the credibility of the entire process, particularly because voting is the main way many citizens, especially those in rural areas who may never visit Banjul, exercise their citizenship and help shape the country’s direction.

Mr. Fatty concluded that withholding the basis of the findings until the eleventh hour runs counter to the principles of fair hearing, natural justice and substantive justice. A commission established to promote accountability and transparency, he said, should not end in concealment and a lack of disclosure during the post-report process.