Is an Apology Sufficient When the President or a Minister Violates the Constitution?
President Barrow and Finance Minister Keita
By Yusef Taylor, @FlexDan_YT
On Friday 15th November 2024, the Speaker of the House, Hon Fabakary Tombong Jatta ruled for the Finance Minister, Hon Seedy Keita to apologize for failing to table the 2025 Budget sixty days before the end of the year which should have coincided with the end of October 2024.
This was after Minority Leader Hon Alhagie S Darbo of Brikama North who is also the Chairperson of Parliament’s Finance and Public Accounts Committee raised a motion that provision 152 (1) of the 1997 Constitution has been violated.
The section that was allegedly violated is provision 152 (1) of the 1997 Constitution focused on Annual Estimates and Appropriation. According to this provision, "the President shall cause the Secretary of State responsible for finance to prepare and lay before the National Assembly at least sixty days before the end of the financial year, estimates of the revenue and expenditure of The Gambia for the following financial year".
Given that the Budget is the second most important national document, after only the Constitution, this violation could be termed as a gross violation. It's important to note that this violation also means that the President has failed in his duty by not causing the Finance Minister to table the Budget on time.
So, in this regard, both President Adama Barrow and Finance Minister Seedy Keita could have been held accountable by Parliamentarians of the Sixth Legislature. But what does the Constitution say about the President or a Secretary of State violating the constitution? Does the Constitution specify that an apology will suffice, or does it specify another punishment?
Provision 75 (1) of the 1997 Constitution is on Vote of Censure, which stipulates what should happen to any Secretary of State (Minister) or the Vice President when they violate the Constitution.
This provision dictates that "The National Assembly may, by resolution supported by the votes of two-thirds of all the members, pass a vote of censure against a Secretary of State or Vice President on the grounds of-
(a) his or her inability, arising from any cause, to perform the functions of his or her office;
(b) abuse of office or violation of any provision of this Constitution;
(c) his or her misconduct in office."
It's beyond any reasonable doubt that tabling and implementing the Budget is a core function for the Minister for Finance so it could be argued that Hon Seedy Keita has failed to perform the functions of his office as dictated by provision 152 (1) of the 1997 Constitution.
On the part of the President, given that provision 152 (1) of the 1997 Constitution demands that the President shall cause the Finance Minister to table the Budget and that has not happened it could also be considered that the President has violated the Constitution.
So what does the Constitution say about the President violating the Constitution?
Provision 67 (1) a of the 1997 Constitution is on Misconduct of the President which demands that "The President may be removed from office in accordance with this section on any of the following grounds - (a) abuse of office, wilful violation of the oath of allegiance or the President’s oath of office, or wilful violation of any provision of this Consultation".
So, in essence, the 1997 Constitution is consistent in that anybody, be it President, Vice President, or Secretary of State (Minister), MAY be censured by the National Assembly for violating any provision of the Constitution.
So, the question we all need to ask ourselves is this: Did the National Assembly defend the Constitution or simply ignored the Constitution to demand an apology from the Finance Minister?
