By Bruce Asemota
The Supreme Court presided over by Chief Justice Hassan Jallow yesterday entertained the constitutional suit filed by Sait Matty Jaw, Madi Jobarteh, Pa Samba Jaw and Bubacarr Nyang against the Clerk of the National Assembly, Minister of Finance and the Attorney General and Minister of Justice.
The suit centres on constitutionality of the minister of finance appearing before the National Assembly on 15th November, 2024 to present and lay the 2025 Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure of the Government.
The plaintiffs are aggrieved that the decision of the National Assembly allowing the finance minister to deliver the draft 2025 Estimates of the Revenue and Expenditure (budget) was done outside the timeframe allowed by the Constitution of The Gambia.
They contended that the Speaker of the National Assembly has no proper authority to extend the constitutionally prescribed timeframe and should have approached the court for enforcement of the constitution to extend the constitutionally prescribed timeframe.
The plaintiffs argued that the action of the speaker to extend the constitutionally prescribed timeframe for the minister to deliver the budget was a breach of Section 152 of the Constitution as amended by the Constitutional Amendment Act, 2023 No. 7 of 2013.
According to the plaintiff’s’ lawyer Abdoulie Fatty, the plaintiffs are interested in the rule of law, democratic values, and good governance for the life of the country.
Lawyer Fatty submitted that the parliament must confine itself to the constitutional provisions noting that the supremacy of the National Assembly in terms of making laws is subject to the overall supremacy of the constitution.
He argued that the Speaker of the National Assembly adopted a fundamental flaw constitutionally by his decision in extending timeframe for the finance minister to deliver the budgetary allocation but the National Assembly should have asked for the jurisdiction of the court before doing so.
Lawyer Fatty submitted that, where the constitution has provided a timeline to do something, failure to do so is considered a breach of the constitution and the court must ensure that provisions of the constitution are adhered to.
In response, State Counsel Oketie contended that the process has been overtaken by events and that the Supreme Court is not a court of academic exercise and urged the court to dismiss the suit against the state with heavy cost. The matter was adjourned for judgement.
