By Sirrah Touray
In a historic legal confrontation, the National Assembly made its debut appearance before the High Court yesterday, to argue against a multi-million dalasi lawsuit filed by Army Sergeant Adama Jagne.
The case, which pits a military whistleblower against the country’s highest legislative body, took a sharp turn into constitutional technicalities and judicial reprimand.
Sergeant Adama Jagne, was previously summoned as a witness by the National Assembly’s Special Select Committee mandated to inquire into the sale and disposal of assets identified by the Janneh Commission and connected matters. The summon subsequently led to his arrest for contempt.
The soldier was not happy and filed a suit against the National Assembly, the Gambia Armed Forces and the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, seeking a declaration that his arrest and detention was unlawful. Sgt Jagne also seeks an award of D2.2 million in compensation and legal costs.
Marking a precedent setting move, the National Assembly appeared in court represented by its own lawyers led by Counsel Lamin M Dibba and comprising counsels Aji Sainey Kah and Counsel Amadou Bah. The lawyers immediately took aim at procedural flaws, challenging the validity of the service of court processes against the Assembly.
They argued that civil processes cannot be served on the Assembly while in session, specifically noting that the Assembly was in its budget session at the time of service.
The presiding judge, Sonia Akinbiyi KJW, queried whether the matters raised were merely procedural, noting that the bench is increasingly weary of technicalities.
In response, the counsel for the National Assembly argued that the provision in question serves to uphold the constitutional principle of separation of powers, and stressed that while the Assembly is in session, its mandate remains focused on its legislative and representative duties. The Assembly’s council further contended that while the issue might appear minor, it carries profound constitutional weight.
The counsel representing the 1st and 3rd respondents underscored the gravity of the situation, pointing out that the applicant had submitted an amended process without the court’s leave. He contended that the intent behind this amendment remained ambiguous, exacerbated by the applicant’s failure to appear in court to provide the necessary clarification.
In her ruling, Justice Sonia ordered that the proceedings be stayed until the applicant appeared personally to address the outstanding issues.
The judge noted that the applicant had sent correspondence to the court, excusing his absence by claiming a scheduling conflict with another High Court matter. However, the court dismissed this excuse as “frivolous and lame,” noting that the applicant had already been given the chance to select an alternative date and time. Consequently, the court found no merit in the claim that he was unable to appear.
As a consequence of these procedural lapses, the court levelled financial penalties against the applicant.
Justice Akinbiyi awarded costs of D5,000 to the 1st and 3rd respondents, with an additional D5,000 designated for the 2nd respondent. These sums must be settled in full before the matter resumes at 11:00 am today.
