The Gambia Bar Association (GBA) has expressed its “gravest concern and profound disappointment” over the failure of the judiciary to assign or “take any meaningful judicial steps” in respect of the constitutional suit it initiated on 31st July 2026, challenging the constitutional qualifications and eligibility of the current Chief Justice, Edi Faal.
A statement released by the GBA executive committee yesterday pointed out that more than three months after the filing of the matter, the case has neither been assigned to a judge for directions nor placed before a full bench for hearing.
It stated: “Not a single substantive judicial step has been taken towards its determination. This is a constitutional challenge concerning the occupant of the highest judicial office in the republic, an office of exceptional constitutional significance, including its place in the presidential line of succession.
“Given the extraordinary importance and urgency of the matter, the GBA reasonably anticipated that appropriate directions would have been issued during the judicial vacation for the filing of all court processes, to enable the parties to make their submissions on the pending applications (which could be heard by a single justice of the court) upon resumption of the courts in October and for the matter to be determined expeditiously, preferably before the end of that month. Regrettably, none of this has happened.”
The association noted that on 26th October 2026, its lawyers formally wrote to the registrar of the Supreme Court requesting the urgent assignment and progression of the matter.
In a response dated 30th October 2026, the registrar confirmed that the file was received and had been forwarded to the chief justice for directives and that directives would be communicated “if and when received”.
GBA said this response “is inadequate and deeply disturbing” as the chief justice has a direct personal interest in proceedings challenging the constitutionality of his own appointment and therefore he should not exercise any judicial authority or discretionary control over the assignment, progression or determination of those proceedings.
GBA said its lawyers reiterated these concerns in a letter dated 3rd November 2026, requesting urgent clarification and appropriate action but no response was received and the matter remains unassigned.
It added: “The attorney general has applied for the recusal of the chief justice, and the GBA does not oppose that application. Both sides have therefore taken the position that the chief justice should not sit in this matter.
“The GBA does not question the chief justice’s general administrative authority as head of the judiciary. This case is different. Receiving or forwarding a file is administrative. Giving directions on pending applications, deciding when and whether the case is listed, and constituting the panel are acts that shape how the case is heard. A party to the case should not do any of those things. The GBA regards the present position as incompatible with the principle that no person should be a judge in their own cause.”
GBA demands that the case be placed before an independent justice of the Supreme Court for directions, and then listed and heard, lamenting that several other cases filed in the past few months, some with urgent applications that need to be heard, are gathering dust in the office of the chief justice and that justice delayed is justice denied.
It stated that with the current judicial term ending in December, “the continued inaction raises the gravest concerns that this exceptionally important constitutional challenge will be allowed to drift into yet another term without even being mentioned in court”.
“These circumstances increasingly give rise to a legitimate and deeply troubling perception that the proceedings are being deliberately stalled. Whether intended or otherwise, the practical consequence is the same: a matter going to the constitutional legitimacy of the highest judicial office remains in abeyance, without judicial consideration.
“The GBA puts the public on notice of its serious concerns and calls for the immediate assignment, listing and hearing of the case, failing which it reserves the right to take any legitimate action it deems necessary in the circumstances. The continued paralysis of proceedings of such constitutional magnitude is unacceptable and risks eroding public confidence in the administration of justice,” the statement concluded.
