Attorneys for Sait Matty Jaw, Madi Jobarteh, Coach-Pasamba Jow and Baboucarr Sufism Nyang urged them to declare their 2025 budget submission and unconstitutional acceptance of the Parliament, claiming it was in violation of the mandatory timeline set by the constitution.
The four plaintiffs sued the Congressional and the Attorney General’s Secretary, objecting to the fact that on November 15, 2024, the Minister of Finance represented a 2025 estimate of revenue and expenditure in 2024.
The plaintiffs, represented by Counsels Abdolie Fatty, Salieu Taal, and Lamin J. Darboe, argue that the Parliamentary Chair has crossed constitutional boundaries by accepting the filing of the delayed budget. Fatty, the lead counsel, emphasized that his clients are acting in the public interest to maintain democratic principles, accountability and constitutional superiority.
At the heart of the plaintiffs’ argument is whether the parliament has the authority to override or extend the constitutional deadline through its standing order. The lawyers submitted that no such authority exists and that any deviation from Section 152 constitutes a violation of the Constitution.
He called section 127(1)(a). This gave the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to interpret and enforce the Constitution, and argued that the matter before the Court was within the scope of the order.
Challenging the reliance on Order 8 of the Parliament’s standing order, lawyer Fatty argued that internal parliamentary rules cannot override the constitution. He cited the Gambia attended and Anor vs. Parliamentary Clerk and Ors. There, the Supreme Court ruled that even if there was a procedural basis, it could consider the actions of the Diet, allegedly violating the Constitution.
Fatty took issue with the speaker’s position that Section 152 does not specify the outcome of delayed submission. He argued that interpreting constitutional silence as permission for a bypass timeline is equivalent to judicial reasoning.
To strengthen his case, the lawyer was Alexander Afeño Malkin v. He cited cases from Ghana such as the Speaker of the Congress, Abdurai Abdurai Abdurai Justi General. He stressed that under constitutional superiority, even a standing order in Parliament must succumb to constitutional obligations.
Sign up for the AllAfrica newsletter for free
Get the latest African news
success!
Almost finished…
You need to check your email address.
Follow the instructions in the email you sent to complete the process.
error!
There was a problem processing the submission. Please try again later.
He emphasized the compulsive nature of the language of Article 152(1). This states that the president has “described the estimate as “” before the Parliament at least 60 days before the end of the fiscal year. He argued that this imposes a binding obligation that cannot be discretionary.
Fatty concluded by urging the Supreme Court to declare the acceptance of the Parliament of the late unconstitutional budget and to invalidate all subsequent actions based on it and confirm the hegemony of the Constitution.
Lawyer Ramin Fatty called on the court to overturn the Parliamentary decision, arguing that enforcing constitutional timelines is essential for accountability and good governance. The case will continue in the Supreme Court.
