By: The Fatu Network Editorial
The Supreme Court of The Gambia has ruled in favor of the Kanifing Municipal Council (KMC) in its legal challenge against the Ministry of Lands and the Inspector General of Police, declaring that their actions in attempting to reinstate Sainabou Martin Sonko as Chief Executive Officer of the Council were unconstitutional.
The Court found that the Ministry of Lands and the Police violated the Constitution by forcibly entering the KMC premises to install Ms. Sonko, who was on administrative leave at the time. According to the ruling, “the forced entry into the KMC offices and the use of armed police officers to install Sainabou Martin Sonko were unconstitutional acts that violated the sanctity of public office and the lawful administrative processes of the Council.”
It further determined that the breaking into offices at the KMC constituted an unlawful act. “The break-in into offices at the KMC amounted to an illegal act and a breach of the constitutional rights afforded to the institution and its staff,” the judgment stated.
The Supreme Court also declared that the deployment of armed police officers to enforce Ms. Sonko’s installation as CEO was unconstitutional. “The deployment of armed police officers to enforce the appointment of a suspended CEO was not only excessive but a clear violation of constitutional safeguards,” the Court ruled.
The attempt to compel KMC management to hand over control, documents, and authority to Ms. Sonko was similarly rejected. The Court noted that “efforts to coerce the Council into transferring power to an individual on administrative leave undermined lawful administrative procedures and violated the principles of good governance.”
The ruling reaffirmed that the Kanifing Municipal Council holds a high degree of autonomy as prescribed by law and that decisions regarding internal management and staff appointments, including the CEO, fall within the authority of the Council. “The Kanifing Municipal Council possesses a high degree of autonomy as guaranteed by law. The Ministry of Lands has no legal authority to interfere in internal administrative decisions of the Council,” the judgment stated.
In addition, the Court addressed the issue of official correspondence, declaring that the Permanent Secretary’s act of withholding documents intended for the Local Government Service Commission constituted unlawful interference. “Interfering with official communications intended for the Local Government Service Commission constitutes an unlawful obstruction of the Commission’s independence,” the ruling emphasized.
This decision underscores the constitutional protections afforded to local councils and delineates the limits of ministerial and police authority in matters relating to local governance.
