The Gambia Bar Association (GBA) has expressed serious concern over what it describes as the continued failure of the Judiciary to assign or take substantive judicial steps in a constitutional case challenging the qualifications and eligibility of Chief Justice Edi M.O. Faal.
In a statement issued on Monday, 9 November 2026, the GBA said more than three months after filing the suit on 31 July 2026, the matter had neither been assigned to a Justice for directions nor placed before a full bench for hearing.
The association described the delay as particularly concerning given the constitutional importance of the case, which challenges the eligibility of the occupant of the country’s highest judicial office, an office that also has a role in the presidential line of succession.
The Chief Justice is named as the second defendant in the proceedings.
According to the GBA, it had expected appropriate directions to be issued during the judicial vacation to allow parties to file their submissions and enable the matter to be heard expeditiously following the resumption of court in October.
However, the association said no such steps had been taken.
The GBA disclosed that its lawyers wrote to the Registrar of the Supreme Court on 26 October, requesting the urgent assignment and progression of the case.
In a response dated 30 October, the Registrar reportedly confirmed that the file had been forwarded to the Chief Justice for directives, adding that such directives would be communicated “if and when received”.
The association described the response as inadequate and disturbing, arguing that the Chief Justice has a direct personal interest in the proceedings and should not exercise judicial authority or discretionary control over the assignment, listing or determination of the case.
The GBA said its lawyers reiterated their concerns in further correspondence dated 3 November, but had received no response.
It also disclosed that the Attorney General had applied for the Chief Justice’s recusal, an application the association said it does not oppose.
The GBA maintained that the matter should be placed before an independent Justice of the Supreme Court for preliminary directions, stressing that a party to legal proceedings should not exercise control over how the case is heard.
The association further revealed that several other cases filed in recent months, including matters involving urgent applications, were allegedly facing similar delays.
With the current judicial term expected to end in December, the GBA warned that continued inaction could result in the constitutional challenge being carried into another judicial term without being heard.
It said the delay risks undermining public confidence in the administration of justice and called on the Judiciary to publicly clarify whether any directions had been issued on the file and, if not, why.
The association emphasised that it was not seeking a predetermined outcome but wanted the constitutional questions raised to be determined by an independent and impartial court without further delay.
It warned that it reserved the right to take any legitimate action should the matter remain stalled.
