The dispute arose after the Honourable Member for Lower Saloum raised a Point of Order questioning whether the Bill could be withdrawn after being referred to a committee, citing Order 76(1) of the Standing Orders. The Order allows a bill to be withdrawn at any stage before its Third Reading, except when the bill is before a Committee.
He argued this clause should prevent the government from pulling the Bill mid-process.
The Speaker, however, emphasized that committees are subordinate to the Assembly, which derives its authority from the Constitution. Interpreting the Standing Orders to block withdrawal after committee referral, the ruling argued, would elevate committee procedure above the plenary authority of the Assembly and create unnecessary procedural rigidity.
Clarifying the intent of the Order, the Speaker said it was meant only to prevent disruption of active committee work, not to strip the government of the right to request withdrawal. Insisting that committees continue deliberations on a bill no longer supported by the government, he noted, would waste public resources, staff time, and parliamentary effort.
The ruling also highlighted that the Attorney General had followed all formal requirements, including giving notice of withdrawal, and that past practice in the Assembly supports withdrawal after committee referral but before Third Reading. Comparative examples from other Commonwealth parliaments were cited to reinforce that the Assembly retains ultimate control over its legislative agenda.
As a result, the request to withdraw the Vetting Bill, 2023, was deemed procedurally valid, and the Point of Order by the Lower Saloum MP was overruled. The Bill is officially withdrawn, reaffirming the government’s ability to influence legislative proceedings before final passage.
Some members warn that it sets a precedent allowing powerful sponsors to bypass committee scrutiny, raising concerns about transparency, accountability, and parliament’s ability to control its agenda.
