By Arret Jatta
The Supreme Court has dismissed a constitutional challenge to the president’s power to grant amnesty to individuals barred from holding public office by commissions of inquiry, ruling that the National Assembly acted within its constitutional authority when it enacted the Commission of Inquiry (Amendment) Act 2023.
In a unanimous judgment delivered by a five-member panel yesterday, the apex court upheld the amendment and dismissed the suit filed by the Coalition of Progressive Gambians and journalist Kemeseng Sanneh, popularly known as Kexx Sanneh, against the Attorney General and the Clerk of the National Assembly.
The applicants had argued that Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the amendment were inconsistent with Sections 200 to 206 of the 1997 Constitution, which establish the legal framework for commissions of inquiry. They contended that Parliament exceeded its legislative authority by passing legislation that undermines the binding effect of commission findings and allows the President to set aside sanctions imposed on individuals barred from holding public office.
The case centred on whether the National Assembly could lawfully amend the Commission of Inquiry Act to empower the president to grant amnesty to persons adversely affected by commission findings.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that Parliament possessed the constitutional authority to amend the legal consequences arising from commissions of inquiry and that the amendment does not contravene the Constitution. The judgment means the Commission of Inquiry (Amendment) Act 2023 remains valid and fully enforceable.
The amendment, passed by the National Assembly on 2 September 2023, introduced a mechanism allowing the President to grant amnesty to persons disqualified from public office by a commission of inquiry. Before the amendment, those sanctions remained in force without any statutory provision for presidential relief.
Speaking after the judgment, senior counsel Lamin J Darbo, who represented the plaintiffs, said he respected the Supreme Court’s decision but disagreed with its reasoning. He noted that because the decision was unanimous, there was little prospect of seeking a review before the apex court.
Darboe said his legal team would consult with their clients on whether to pursue the matter before the Ecowas Court of Justice. The ruling settles the constitutional question in favour of the amendment and confirms the president’s legal authority to grant amnesty under the amended law.
