“It is understandable that any major presidential appointment made during an election year will generate debate. Every public official, including the Chief Justice, must be open to legitimate public scrutiny. What is unacceptable, however, is for that scrutiny to be based on speculation, personal attacks, misleading claims, or allegations presented without credible evidence.
The Gambia Bar Association has important questions to answer.
The Gambia Bar Association must recognize that legal opinion is not the law. Constitutional questions are ultimately determined by the courts through the judicial process, not by public statements or institutional opinions. If the Association believes the Constitution has been violated, it has every right to seek judicial determination. That is the proper constitutional process.
When the Association submitted its concerns to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), it promptly informed both its members and the wider Gambian public. Why, then, was the Commission's response not given the same level of publicity? If the Association is genuinely committed to transparency, both the original objection and the Commission's response should be made available for public scrutiny.
Transparency cannot be selective. You cannot publicize the accusation while withholding the answer.
It must be remembered that the Judicial Service Commission is the constitutionally established body responsible for advising the President on judicial appointments, including the appointment of the Chief Justice.
The Commission for the appointment of Mr. Faal was chaired by former Chief Justice Hassan B. Jallow, one of the country's most senior and respected legal figures and a longstanding member of the Gambia Bar Association. Mind you, Hon Hassan B Jallow is the Chief Interpreter of the The Gambian Constitution at this time. The Commission reportedly voted unanimously to recommend Mr. Edi Faal's appointment.
That fact cannot simply be ignored because it does not support the position of a small but vocal minority.
The Bar Association must also avoid allowing the views of a minority to be presented as the unanimous position of the entire Gambian legal profession. If a formal vote of the Association's full membership was conducted, the results should be published. If no such vote was held, that fact should also be disclosed.
I have received reports that certain journalists and social media commentators were approached and encouraged to publish hostile material against Mr. Faal. I have not independently verified those reports. However, those who reportedly declined did so because they did not wish to participate in what they believed was a coordinated campaign of character assassination.
Regardless of differing legal opinions, the reputation of an individual should not be damaged simply because a constitutional or political disagreement exists.
The Gambia Bar Association should focus on its legal challenge, present its constitutional arguments before the appropriate institutions, disclose the Judicial Service Commission's response, and allow the courts and the Gambian public to consider the complete factual record.
No individual is above scrutiny—not the President, not the Chief Justice, and not the Gambia Bar Association. But scrutiny must be honest, evidence-based, transparent, and respectful of the dignity and reputation of everyone involved.
Public accountability strengthens democracy. Character assassination weakens it.”
By Alagie Sanyang
MSc, Columbia University, New York
as4112@columbia.edu
