Gambia Bar Association Accuses Judiciary of Stalling Suit Challenging Chief Justice Faal’s Appointment

The Gambia Bar Association (GBA) has accused the Gambian Judiciary of failing to assign a constitutional suit challenging the appointment and eligibility of Chief Justice Edi M.O. Faal, warning that the continued delay risks undermining public confidence in the administration of justice.

The association said more than three months after it instituted the suit on July 31, 2026, the case had neither been assigned to a Supreme Court Justice for directions nor listed for hearing. In a statement issued on Monday, November 9, the GBA described the delay as deeply troubling, noting that the suit concerns the constitutional qualifications and eligibility of the country's highest judicial officer, who is named as the second defendant. The association also highlighted the constitutional significance of the office of the Chief Justice, including its position in the presidential line of succession.

The GBA said it had expected the court to issue procedural directions during the judicial vacation to allow parties to file their submissions and enable the pending applications to be heard promptly after the courts resumed in October.

However, it said no meaningful judicial action had been taken.

On October 26, the association's lawyers formally wrote to the Registrar of the Supreme Court, requesting the urgent assignment and progression of the case.

According to the GBA, the Registrar replied on October 30, confirming that the case file had been received and forwarded to the Chief Justice for directives.

The Registrar reportedly stated that the directives would be communicated "if and when received".

The association described the response as inadequate, arguing that the Chief Justice should not exercise control over proceedings in which his own appointment and constitutional eligibility are being challenged.

"The Chief Justice has a direct personal interest in proceedings challenging the constitutionality of his own appointment. He ought not to exercise any judicial authority or discretionary control over the assignment, progression or determination of those proceedings," the statement said.

It argued that the matter should instead be handled by independent Supreme Court justices without any personal interest in its outcome.

The GBA said the Registrar's response did not provide a hearing date or clarify whether any procedural requirements remained outstanding. It added that its lawyers sent another letter on November 3 seeking clarification and urgent action, but had yet to receive a response.

The association further disclosed that the Attorney General had applied for the Chief Justice's recusal from the proceedings, adding that it did not oppose the application.

"Both sides have therefore taken the position that the Chief Justice should not sit in this matter," it stated.

The GBA acknowledged the Chief Justice's general administrative authority as head of the Judiciary but insisted that the circumstances of the case required a distinction between routine administrative functions and decisions that could influence the proceedings.

"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 association said.

It added that allowing an interested party to exercise such authority would violate the principle that no person should be a judge in their own cause.

"The GBA does not ask the Registry to decide any issue. It asks that the case be placed before an independent Justice of the Supreme Court for directions, and then listed and heard. The GBA will not accept that access to the Supreme Court depends on the discretion of an interested party," it stated.

The association also alleged that other cases filed in recent months, including those containing urgent applications, were experiencing similar delays and remained unattended in the Chief Justice's office.

"Incidentally, there are several other cases filed in the past few months, some with urgent applications that need to be heard, suffering the same fate, gathering dust in the office of the Chief Justice. Justice delayed is Justice denied," the statement said.

With the current judicial term expected to end in December, the GBA warned that continued inaction could push the constitutional challenge into another judicial term without being mentioned in court.

It said the circumstances were creating a troubling perception that the proceedings were 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 association stated.

The GBA said it instituted the case as part of its responsibility to defend the Constitution, uphold the rule of law and protect the independence and integrity of the Judiciary.

It stressed that it was not seeking a predetermined outcome but wanted the constitutional questions raised in the suit determined by an independent and impartial court.

The association also warned that any directive or interference concerning the listing, hearing or constitution of the court by a party to the case or anyone with a personal interest in it could amount to a denial of the right to a fair hearing.

"Should that occur, the GBA reserves the right to rely on it as a ground for alleging a denial of justice and to seek all appropriate relief," it said.

The association called on the Judiciary to publicly clarify whether any directives had been issued on the case and, if not, explain the reason for the delay.

It also demanded that the case file be immediately placed before an independent Supreme Court Justice for preliminary directions.

The GBA said its statement addressed only the delay and procedural issues, not the substantive merits of the constitutional challenge, which it said should be determined by the court.

It warned that it reserved the right to take any legitimate action necessary if the case was not urgently assigned, listed and heard.