As a lawyer, I am confused about the Supreme Court’s rejection of the interlocutory application of Hon. Kumba Jaiteh, but the same court wish to continue to deal with the substantive matter of her appeal, which is to determine whether the President has power to remove a nominated MP or not under the constitution.
How do they hope to reconcile a negative answer to that question with allowing the President to appoint another nominated MP, which – supposed they come to a negative conclusion that the President has no power to remove a nominated MP once sworn in – how will the new MP be removed after he is sworn in on Monday! As they would be ruling that the President cannot once a nominated MP is sworn in.
The outcome at that point would even be more complicated, as the President would have nominated 6 MPs rather than the 5 authorised by the constitution.
This is a terrible decision, unless the Court has already determined that substantive matter before it and determined that the President has such powers to remove the nominated MP, without sharing the same with the rest of us.
I’m shocked!!
I cannot imagine this happening in the UK, where a mere case before the court will compel the Court to grant injunction until that case is determined by the court or unless the judge considers the substantive matter before the court to be without merit or that the lack of injunction or restrain sought will not affect the final outcome of the substantive matter.
Gambian leader hails decorated military officers for their ‘loyalty’ to Gambia 
Ten Gambian senior military officers promoted to colonel ranks 
Nigerian man who swallowed 130 pellets of cocaine arrested at Banjul international airport 
Gambia and Azerbaijan announce visa waiver for diplomatic passport holders 
Opinion: Teenage temptation problem 
As a lawyer, I am confused about the Supreme Court’s rejection of the interlocutory application of Hon. Kumba Jaiteh, but the same court wish to continue to deal with the substantive matter of her appeal, which is to determine whether the President has power to remove a nominated MP or not under the constitution.
How do they hope to reconcile a negative answer to that question with allowing the President to appoint another nominated MP, which – supposed they come to a negative conclusion that the President has no power to remove a nominated MP once sworn in – how will the new MP be removed after he is sworn in on Monday! As they would be ruling that the President cannot once a nominated MP is sworn in.
The outcome at that point would even be more complicated, as the President would have nominated 6 MPs rather than the 5 authorised by the constitution.
This is a terrible decision, unless the Court has already determined that substantive matter before it and determined that the President has such powers to remove the nominated MP, without sharing the same with the rest of us.
I’m shocked!!
I cannot imagine this happening in the UK, where a mere case before the court will compel the Court to grant injunction until that case is determined by the court or unless the judge considers the substantive matter before the court to be without merit or that the lack of injunction or restrain sought will not affect the final outcome of the substantive matter.
Yanks Dabo