By Mam Sait Ceesay
In a swift legal move following the conclusion of the Local Government Commission of Inquiry, Mayor Talib Bensouda of the Kanifing Municipality filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeal. The step represents a decisive strategy: before the executive branch can digest the commission’s report and publish its official whitepaper, Mayor Bensouda is moving directly to neutralise the findings against him in a court of law.
Yes, under Gambian constitutional law, it is proper for Bensouda to appeal at this stage. In fact, appealing now, rather than waiting for the government’s whitepaper, is standard legal procedure.
The framework surrounding commissions of inquiry in The Gambia outlines the key reasons why appealing prior to the release of a whitepaper is legally sound.
Section 204(1) of the 1997 Constitution of The Gambia provides that when a commission of inquiry makes an adverse finding against any person, it must notify that individual upon submitting its report to the president. Section 204(2) explicitly grants the adversely mentioned person the right to appeal those findings directly to the Court of Appeal “as of right” as if the finding were a judgment of the high court.
The legal subject of the appeal is the adverse finding of the commission, not the government’s whitepaper.
The Local Government Commission of Inquiry, established to examine governance, financial management, and municipal administrative conduct across local councils, formally served Mr Bensouda with a Notice to an Adversely Mentioned Person on 12th May 2026. Among its core determinations, the panel concluded that the mayor exercised executive and political influence that led to — or sustained — irregular commitments, unauthorised expenditures, and extra-statutory financial exposure within the municipality.
Unwilling to let those findings go unchallenged or wait for the administrative fallout of a government whitepaper, Bensouda has invoked Section 204 of the 1997 Constitution, which guarantees adversely mentioned individuals a mechanism for legal redress.
At the centre of Bensouda’s appeal is a fundamental pushback against the factual and legal basis of the Commission’s conclusions. His legal arguments hinge on three primary points:
• Lack of specificity: The commission failed to detail or specify precisely which financial decisions or unauthorized expenditures the mayor allegedly influenced.
• Separation of financial roles: As the elected political head, the mayor does not serve as an accounting officer. Under local government operational frameworks, financial authorisations fall strictly under the purview of council accounting officers.
• Lawful governance mandate: His actions were performed within his constitutional and statutory mandate as the elected leader responsible for overseeing municipal affairs lawfully and effectively.
Under Gambian constitutional and administrative law, appealing to the Court of Appeal can neutralise the legal impact of an adverse findings, which in turn prevents those findings from disqualifying a candidate under Section 62/63 provisions of The Gambia’s Constitution.
By taking the matter directly to the Court of Appeal under Section 204, Mayor Bensouda is utilising the judicial process to challenge the commission’s findings before they become permanent. If the Court of Appeal rules in his favour and sets aside the findings, it effectively neutralises both the commission’s conclusions and any government whitepaper built upon them, clearing the legal barrier to his presidential eligibility.
Beyond the legal technicalities, the appeal highlights the delicate balance between accountability bodies and judicial oversight. While commissions of inquiry are designed to expose administrative shortcomings and restore public confidence, constitutional avenues like Section 204 ensure that political figures and public officers retain the right to challenge conclusions before an independent judiciary.
The upcoming decision by the Court of Appeal will do more than resolve individual accountability; it will define whether the Commission’s conclusions hold legal weight or fall short under strict standard-of-proof and natural justice scrutiny. As the appeal proceeds, all eyes remain on the courts to see whether this bold pre-emptive strategy will successfully clear the mayor’s record.