‘BARROW DIDN’T VIOLATE LAW IN REMOVING AUDITOR GENERAL’
Lawyer Mai Ahmad Fatty, leader of the Gambia Moral Congress (GMC), has stated that President Adama Barrow did not violate any law in the process of removing Auditor General Modou Ceesay. Mr Ceesay was controversially removed from office by force after declining an offer to become minister. He described the ministerial offer as a smokescreen to remove him as auditor general and vowed to challenge his forceful removal in court. He also denied ever been consulted over the ministerial job offer before receiving an appointment letter, a claim refuted by the government. Many professional bodies, politicians and commentators condemned the move citing the independence of the office and the need to protect it from interference. But the Office of The President has since denied any interference in the work of the National Audit Office.
However, MaiFatty, a key political ally of President Barrow a seasoned politician and former Interior Minister has come to the president’s defence stating that the actions taken were within the legal framework.
In a write-up shared with The Standard, Fatty explained that while the removal of a high-ranking official like the auditor general can be contentious, the decision was carried out according to established legal procedures and urged the public and political stakeholders to understand that safeguarding the rule of law means sometimes making difficult decisions that serve the public interest and maintain institutional integrity.
Fatty, who has positioned himself as a strong advocate for constitutionalism and democratic stability, highlighted that by accepting ministerial appointment, Mr Ceesay voluntarily placed himself within the Executive branch while simultaneously holding office designed to audit and scrutinise that same Executive.
“The acceptance alone, not the formal appointment, triggered the incompatibility. The Executive, reasonably relying on this acceptance, proceeded with governmental restructuring, cabinet planning and potentially communicated changes to other stakeholders,” he said.
Fatty added that for Mr Ceesay to subsequently refuse the ministerial appointment while clinging to the auditor general position constitutes the very unconscionable conduct the doctrine prevents.
“Mr Ceesay’s acceptance of ministerial appointment operated immediately to disqualify him from continuing as auditor general. His subsequent attempt to withdraw acceptance cannot retrospectively undo this legal consequence, any more than one could retroactively undo a resignation once tendered and accepted.”
Fatty further argued that Mr Ceesay, as a senior constitutional officer, possessed enhanced duties of consistency and good faith.
“His acceptance created legitimate expectations throughout the governmental apparatus. The president’s reliance on this acceptance for ministerial appointments, potentially affecting other cabinet positions, budget allocations and administrative structures, establishes the requisite detriment. Allowing withdrawal would create substantive unfairness,” Fatty added.
He concluded that the Executive’s action was legally mandated and constitutionally necessary under established legal principles, supported by extensive regional authority and fundamental constitutional doctrines preventing abuse of protected positions.
“In a nutshell, it is my considered view, based on established jurisprudence that the president did not violate any law.”
Source: The Standard
