1 in the high court of the gambia held at banjul on thursday the 10th ...

properly constituted <strong>in</strong> accordance with <strong>the</strong> decree authoriz<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> establishment <strong>of</strong> variouscommissions <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>quiry. There was <strong>the</strong>refore no commission and as a result no decisionmade as any such purported decision or f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g or conclusion is a nullity. Reference wasmade to <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> Omar Badara Cham v AG civil appeal No 10/98.Hav<strong>in</strong>g considered all <strong>the</strong> argument <strong>of</strong> parties, I note for <strong>the</strong> record th<strong>at</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r issues onjurisdiction were raised and <strong>the</strong>y touched on <strong>the</strong> suit be<strong>in</strong>g an abuse <strong>of</strong> <strong>court</strong> process and itbe<strong>in</strong>g st<strong>at</strong>ute barred. S<strong>in</strong>ce all <strong>the</strong> issues are on jurisdiction I shall deal first with <strong>the</strong> mostfundamental <strong>of</strong> which is <strong>the</strong> basis upon which this suit was <strong>in</strong>iti<strong>at</strong>ed and th<strong>at</strong> be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>objection th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>court</strong> lacked jurisdiction to grant <strong>the</strong> reliefs sought by <strong>the</strong> pla<strong>in</strong>tiff saidreliefs <strong>in</strong>ter alia require <strong>the</strong> <strong>court</strong> to declare th<strong>at</strong>, <strong>the</strong> Commission <strong>of</strong> Inquiry Into TheF<strong>in</strong>ancial Activities <strong>of</strong> Government Departments or Bodies and <strong>the</strong>ir L<strong>in</strong>e M<strong>in</strong>istriespurportedly established pursuant to Decree No.11 <strong>of</strong> 1994 lacked jurisdiction when itproceeded to issue orders aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> pla<strong>in</strong>tiff and enforced <strong>the</strong>m and said Commission wasnot properly constituted as <strong>the</strong> chairman was not qualified to act as a chairman as he wasnot a judge or legal practitioner <strong>of</strong> seven years stand<strong>in</strong>g.I must st<strong>at</strong>e from <strong>the</strong> onset th<strong>at</strong> none <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> authorities cited by all <strong>the</strong> counsel have beenprovided to <strong>the</strong> <strong>court</strong>. Never<strong>the</strong>less I shall proceed to rule on this m<strong>at</strong>ter. I consider th<strong>at</strong>s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> objections be<strong>in</strong>g raised by both <strong>the</strong> 1 st and 4 th defendant is on jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><strong>court</strong> I must refer to <strong>the</strong> Constitution <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Gambia which by section 4 is <strong>the</strong> supreme law <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> land and said Constitution provides under section 132 for <strong>the</strong> jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> HighCourt. Subsection (1)(a) reads as follows;Section 132(1)(a) “ save as provided <strong>in</strong> section 127, <strong>the</strong> <strong>high</strong> <strong>court</strong> shall have orig<strong>in</strong>al jurisdiction tohear and determ<strong>in</strong>e all civil and crim<strong>in</strong>al proceed<strong>in</strong>gs;(b) To <strong>in</strong>terpret and enforce <strong>the</strong> fundamental rights and freedoms as provided <strong>in</strong>section 18 to 33 and section 36(5) and <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> exercise <strong>of</strong> such jurisdiction <strong>the</strong><strong>court</strong> shall have all such power and authority as may be conferred by thisconstitution and any o<strong>the</strong>r law”5

From <strong>the</strong> provisions reproduced above it would appear th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> High Court has jurisdiction tohear and determ<strong>in</strong>e all civil and crim<strong>in</strong>al proceed<strong>in</strong>gs. Yet hav<strong>in</strong>g said so, I must hasten toadd th<strong>at</strong>, hav<strong>in</strong>g regard to <strong>the</strong> submissions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1 st and 4 th defendant th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> acts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>Commission <strong>of</strong> Inquiry were done <strong>in</strong> pursuant to Decree No. 11 <strong>of</strong> 1994 as amended byDecree No 25 and saved <strong>in</strong> Scheduled 2 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1997 Constitution, Said provisions oust <strong>the</strong>jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>court</strong>. I have taken <strong>the</strong> time to refer to and reproduce relevant provisions <strong>of</strong>said laws as follows;Section 15A <strong>of</strong> Decree No. 25“ No <strong>court</strong> shall have jurisdiction to enterta<strong>in</strong> any action or proceed<strong>in</strong>gswh<strong>at</strong>soever for <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> question<strong>in</strong>g any decision, f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g,conclusion, order or proceed<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> a commission made aga<strong>in</strong>st a public<strong>of</strong>ficer under this section and for <strong>the</strong> avoidance <strong>of</strong> doubt it shall not belawful for any <strong>court</strong> to enterta<strong>in</strong> any applic<strong>at</strong>ion for an order or unit <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>n<strong>at</strong>ure if habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrantor,<strong>in</strong>junction or declar<strong>at</strong>ion <strong>in</strong> respect <strong>of</strong> any decision, order, f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g, rul<strong>in</strong>g orproceed<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> a commission pursuant to this section”Paragraph 11(3) Schedule 2 1997 Constitution <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Gambia“ any Order, Rul<strong>in</strong>g, f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> fact, seizure, sale or alien<strong>at</strong>ion <strong>of</strong> propertyor penalty imposed or th<strong>in</strong>g done by or carried out under <strong>the</strong> authority <strong>of</strong>any commission <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>quiry established <strong>in</strong> accordance with a Decree <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>Armed Forces Provisional Rul<strong>in</strong>g Council shall not be questioned orreversed by any <strong>court</strong> or o<strong>the</strong>r authority under this constitution or anyo<strong>the</strong>r law”It is apparent from <strong>the</strong> submissions on <strong>the</strong> prelim<strong>in</strong>ary objection and <strong>the</strong> provisions citedabove th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>court</strong> is ousted one way or <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r. I must st<strong>at</strong>e th<strong>at</strong> it istrite learn<strong>in</strong>g th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> Constitution be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> supreme law <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> land makes provision for <strong>the</strong><strong>court</strong> to adjudic<strong>at</strong>e on and protect <strong>the</strong> rights <strong>of</strong> persons, yet <strong>the</strong>re have been <strong>in</strong>stanceswhere such powers given to <strong>the</strong> <strong>court</strong> are restricted or ousted by st<strong>at</strong>ute or <strong>the</strong> same6

Constitution and <strong>in</strong> such <strong>in</strong>stances when th<strong>at</strong> happens and <strong>the</strong> law is very clear andunambiguous <strong>the</strong> <strong>court</strong> has no option but to abide by such law. To buttress this po<strong>in</strong>t I havereferred to <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court Unreported decision <strong>of</strong> Anto<strong>in</strong>e Banna v Ocean View ResortLimited 2008, where Tobi JSC posited as follows; “as a m<strong>at</strong>ter <strong>of</strong> law, <strong>court</strong>s <strong>of</strong> law arebound to uphold ouster clauses <strong>in</strong> appropri<strong>at</strong>e and relevant cases…where <strong>the</strong> language <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> ouster clause is clear, <strong>court</strong>s <strong>of</strong> law are entitled to refuse jurisdiction <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> m<strong>at</strong>ter”.Therefore <strong>in</strong> reference to <strong>the</strong> Decrees th<strong>at</strong> established <strong>the</strong> Commission <strong>of</strong> Inquiry <strong>in</strong> thism<strong>at</strong>ter I make particular reference to Section 15 <strong>of</strong> Decree No 25 ( cited above butreproduced aga<strong>in</strong> below) and it reads;“ 15 (A) No <strong>court</strong> shall have jurisdiction to enterta<strong>in</strong> any action orproceed<strong>in</strong>gs wh<strong>at</strong>soever for <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> question<strong>in</strong>g any decision,f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g, conclusion, order or proceed<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> a commission made aga<strong>in</strong>st apublic <strong>of</strong>ficer under this section and for <strong>the</strong> avoidance <strong>of</strong> doubt it shall notbe lawful for any <strong>court</strong> to enterta<strong>in</strong> any applic<strong>at</strong>ion for an order or unit <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> n<strong>at</strong>ure if habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, quowarrantor, <strong>in</strong>junction or declar<strong>at</strong>ion <strong>in</strong> respect <strong>of</strong> any decision, order,f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g, rul<strong>in</strong>g or proceed<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> a commission pursuant to this section”.The above provision clearly ousts <strong>the</strong> jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> this <strong>court</strong> to question <strong>the</strong> decision <strong>of</strong> aCommission <strong>of</strong> Inquiry.I have noted with <strong>in</strong>terest th<strong>at</strong> <strong>in</strong> his address to <strong>the</strong> <strong>court</strong>, learned counsel for <strong>the</strong> pla<strong>in</strong>tiff hadfirmly st<strong>at</strong>ed th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> suit does not seek to review or reverse <strong>the</strong> f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g, orders or conclusion<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> commission ra<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> pla<strong>in</strong>tiff is argu<strong>in</strong>g th<strong>at</strong> <strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> commencement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>quiry <strong>the</strong>commission lacked jurisdiction to embark on <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>quiry because it was not constituted <strong>in</strong>accordance with <strong>the</strong> Decree authoriz<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> establishment <strong>of</strong> various commissions. Hesubmitted fur<strong>the</strong>r th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> pla<strong>in</strong>tiff says th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong>re was no commission and <strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong>rewas no decision made as any such purported decision or f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g is a nullity.7

Counsel for <strong>the</strong> 4 th defendant on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand <strong>in</strong> his written submission to <strong>the</strong> <strong>court</strong>referred to paragraphs 13(1), (3), and (5) <strong>of</strong> Schedule 2 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1997 Constitution and st<strong>at</strong>edth<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> appo<strong>in</strong>tment <strong>of</strong> Hon. Justice Alghali cannot be questioned by any <strong>court</strong> <strong>of</strong> thiscountry. For ease <strong>of</strong> reference I have reproduced below <strong>the</strong> provisions referred to.“13(1) No member <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Armed Forces Provisional Rul<strong>in</strong>g Council, anyperson appo<strong>in</strong>ted M<strong>in</strong>ister by <strong>the</strong> Armed Forces Provisional Rul<strong>in</strong>gCouncil or o<strong>the</strong>r appo<strong>in</strong>tees <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Armed Forces Provisional Rul<strong>in</strong>gCouncil shall be <strong>held</strong> liable or answerable before a <strong>court</strong> or authority orunder this Constitution or any o<strong>the</strong>r law ei<strong>the</strong>r jo<strong>in</strong>tly or severally for anact or omission <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> performance <strong>of</strong> his or her <strong>of</strong>ficial duties.(3)for <strong>the</strong> avoidance <strong>of</strong> doubt , it is declared th<strong>at</strong> no action taken orpurported to have been taken <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> exercise <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> executive, legisl<strong>at</strong>iveor judicial power by <strong>the</strong> Armed Forces Provisional Rul<strong>in</strong>g Council or amember <strong>the</strong>re<strong>of</strong> or by any person appo<strong>in</strong>ted by <strong>the</strong> Armed ForcesProvisional Rul<strong>in</strong>g Council <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Armed Forces ProvisionalRul<strong>in</strong>g Council except judges <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court or <strong>the</strong> Court <strong>of</strong>Appeal, shall be questioned <strong>in</strong> any proceed<strong>in</strong>gs wh<strong>at</strong>soever andaccord<strong>in</strong>gly it shall not be lawful for any <strong>court</strong> or tribunal to make anyorder or grant any remedy or relief <strong>in</strong> respect <strong>of</strong> any such act.(5) it shall not be lawful for any <strong>court</strong> or tribunal to enterta<strong>in</strong> an action<strong>in</strong>stituted <strong>in</strong> respect <strong>of</strong> an act or omission aga<strong>in</strong>st a person act<strong>in</strong>g oromitt<strong>in</strong>g to act on <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>structions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Armed Forces Provisional Rul<strong>in</strong>gCouncil or a member <strong>the</strong>re<strong>of</strong> and alleged to be <strong>in</strong> contravention <strong>of</strong> any lawwhe<strong>the</strong>r substantive or procedural <strong>in</strong> existencebefore or dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>adm<strong>in</strong>istr<strong>at</strong>ion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> armed forces provisional rul<strong>in</strong>g council”(Underl<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g m<strong>in</strong>e).I must st<strong>at</strong>e hav<strong>in</strong>g referred to <strong>the</strong> provisions cited and reproduced above, I am <strong>in</strong>cl<strong>in</strong>ed toagree with learned counsel for <strong>the</strong> 4 th defendant and will go fur<strong>the</strong>r to st<strong>at</strong>e th<strong>at</strong> an action8

taken or purported to have been taken by any person appo<strong>in</strong>ted by <strong>the</strong> AFPRC shall not bequestioned <strong>in</strong> accordance with <strong>the</strong> provisions <strong>of</strong> paragraph 13(3) <strong>of</strong> Schedule 2 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1997Constitution and it would not be right for any <strong>court</strong> to enterta<strong>in</strong> an action <strong>in</strong>stituted aga<strong>in</strong>stany person on <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>struction <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> AFPRC <strong>in</strong> respect <strong>of</strong> an act or omission alleged to be <strong>in</strong>contravention <strong>of</strong> any laws whe<strong>the</strong>r substantive or procedural. See paragraph 13(5). See also<strong>the</strong> unreported Gambia Court <strong>of</strong> Appeal Decision <strong>in</strong> Asset Management RecoveryCorpor<strong>at</strong>ion v Saloum O.B Njie and ors Civl Appeal 32/06 delivered <strong>in</strong> July 2010.Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> Gambia Court <strong>of</strong> Appeal “<strong>the</strong>re is no white wash<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>word<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> paragraph 13 (3) which divests <strong>court</strong>s or tribunal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> jurisdiction to questionany action taken or purported to have been taken by <strong>the</strong> AFPRC as a unit or government or<strong>the</strong>ir appo<strong>in</strong>tees <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> exercise <strong>of</strong> th<strong>at</strong> executive, legisl<strong>at</strong>ive or judicial power”. See <strong>the</strong>Unreported decision <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Gambia Court <strong>of</strong> Appeal <strong>in</strong> Bakary Bunja Darboe v AttorneyGeneral.Therefore, it is my considered view th<strong>at</strong> <strong>in</strong> spite <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fact th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> pla<strong>in</strong>tiff <strong>in</strong>sists th<strong>at</strong> herma<strong>in</strong> claim is th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> commission was not properly constituted, this <strong>court</strong> cannot enterta<strong>in</strong>an action <strong>in</strong> respect <strong>of</strong> an act or omission alleged to be <strong>in</strong> contravention <strong>of</strong> any laws whe<strong>the</strong>rsubstantive or procedural or any action th<strong>at</strong> was done by or under <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>structions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>AFPRC.This <strong>court</strong> has no jurisdiction to hear this suit and decl<strong>in</strong>es same. The o<strong>the</strong>r objections raisedon abuse <strong>of</strong> process and limit<strong>at</strong>ion are <strong>the</strong>refore redundant. The prelim<strong>in</strong>ary objections arehereby up<strong>held</strong>. No order is made as to costs.Hon Justice Mama F<strong>at</strong>ima S<strong>in</strong>gh<strong>at</strong>ehJudge10/2/20119