By Modou Jallow,
Washington DC, USA
When Gambians in the diaspora, far removed from the daily struggles at home, begin to whitewash executive overreach as “constitutional order,” we must ask, who do they truly serve? Samsudeen Sarr’s recent attempt to brand Auditor General Modou Ceesay’s defence of the Constitution as “misbehaviour” is misguided and reckless. It is the language of enablers who justify misrule while Gambians pay the price.
1. Presidential feelings do not define misbehaviour
Sarr claims that by rejecting false claims about accepting a ministerial post, Mr Ceesay engaged in “misbehaviour.” But where in the Constitution is “disagreeing with the President” a crime? Section 158 is clear: removal of the Auditor General requires a tribunal. Nothing of that sort happened. If exposing an untruth is “misbehaviour,” truth itself has become dangerous in today’s Gambia.
2. Independence is not insubordination
According to Sarr, because the President appoints the Auditor General, there must be “absolute trust” between them. Wrong. The President also appoints judges; should judges then deliver verdicts to please him? The Auditor General is not a presidential aide but the public finance watchdog. His loyalty is to the Constitution, not to the President’s ego.
3. Hiring a lawyer is not playing politics
Sarr makes much of Mr Ceesay hiring Lamin J Darbo, a lawyer who once pursued politics. But since when did the past ambition of a lawyer disqualify him from practising law? By that logic, every lawyer with political history should be barred from court. Seeking legal advice is professionalism, not partisanship.
4. Silence fuels corruption
Sarr praises past Auditor Generals for being “quiet” and “tactful.” In truth, that silence allowed corruption to fester in The Gambia. Across Africa, those remembered with honour, Daniel Domelevo in Ghana and Kimi Makwetu in South Africa, stood firm under presidential pressure. They defended institutions, not individuals. That is the company Mr Ceesay belongs to.
5. The real danger: weaponising “misbehaviour”
If we normalise Sarr’s logic, any public servant who challenges a false presidential claim risks dismissal for “misbehaviour.” What next, a judge fired for ruling against the state? An anti-corruption official sacked for investigating the presidency? This is not protecting institutions; it is dismantling them brick by brick.
Conclusion: Misrule, not misbehaviour
Let us be clear, the Constitution is supreme, not the President’s word. Section 158 was designed to shield the Auditor General from political capture. By bypassing it, the President has undermined the very independence that gives the office credibility.
Mr Ceesay’s so-called “defiance” was loyalty to the Constitution and the truth. That is not misbehaviour. That is integrity.
And to Mr Sarr: it is easy to sit in the diaspora and twist legality to flatter power. But fellow Gambians abroad and at home know the truth: this is not a battle of personalities; it is a battle for the survival of our institutions.
History will not remember the enablers who justified illegality. It will remember those who resisted it.
