The Supreme Court heard a case yesterday about the timing of last year's budget presentation. Chief Justice Hassan Jallow presided as four citizens—Sait Matty Jaw, Madi Jobarteh, Pa Samba Jaw, and Bubacarr Nyang—challenged government officials. They claim the finance minister delivered the 2025 budget outside legal timeframes.
These citizens argue that the National Assembly Speaker broke the law by allowing the budget presentation on November 15, 2024, which they say violated Section 152 of the Constitution. Their lawyer, Abdoulie Fatty, stressed his clients' care about the rule of law and democratic values. He claimed that parliament must follow constitutional rules just like everyone else.
Fatty argued that the Speaker made a serious error by extending deadlines without court approval. He told judges that missing constitutional deadlines equals breaking the law. The state lawyer Oketie defended differently. He claimed the case serves no purpose because events have already happened.
Oketie asked the judges to throw out the case and make the challengers pay heavy costs. The court finished hearing both sides and will announce its decision later. This case tests whether government officials can change constitutional timeframes without proper court approval.
These citizens argue that the National Assembly Speaker broke the law by allowing the budget presentation on November 15, 2024, which they say violated Section 152 of the Constitution. Their lawyer, Abdoulie Fatty, stressed his clients' care about the rule of law and democratic values. He claimed that parliament must follow constitutional rules just like everyone else.
Fatty argued that the Speaker made a serious error by extending deadlines without court approval. He told judges that missing constitutional deadlines equals breaking the law. The state lawyer Oketie defended differently. He claimed the case serves no purpose because events have already happened.
Oketie asked the judges to throw out the case and make the challengers pay heavy costs. The court finished hearing both sides and will announce its decision later. This case tests whether government officials can change constitutional timeframes without proper court approval.
