The National Assembly of the Gambia

By Fatou Dahaba

On Monday, the Gambia’s National Assembly voted to refer the Judicial Officers (Conditions of Service) Bill to the Assembly Business Committee for further review after a contentious debate highlighting deep divisions over judicial independence, constitutional compliance, and the bill’s scope. The decision, made with 28 votes in favor, four against, and two abstentions, follows heated discussions on legislation regulating salaries, pensions, and post-retirement restrictions for judicial officers.

Tabled by Attorney General and Minister of Justice Dawda A. Jallow, the bill replaces the withdrawn Judicial Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Bill of 2024. It seeks to establish a comprehensive framework to enhance judicial efficiency and independence by formalizing conditions of service for judges and other judicial officers. The proposed law addresses long-standing gaps in legislation governing the judiciary, a critical institution in The Gambia’s democratic framework.

The debate exposed sharp differences among lawmakers. Modou Lamin Bah, Member for Banjul North, championed the bill, arguing that Parliament has a constitutional mandate to set remuneration frameworks that bolster judicial integrity. He emphasized the Assembly’s authority to determine the financial schedules outlined in the bill.

However, Minority Leader Alhagie S. Darboe, representing Brikama North, raised concerns about ambiguities in the legislation. While acknowledging improvements over last year’s withdrawn bill, particularly the explicit inclusion of judges’ salaries, Darboe questioned the shift from pensions based on “basic salary” to “monthly emoluments,” which could significantly increase payouts. Despite their mention in the interpretation section, he also pointed out the omission of magistrates and other judicial officers from the bill’s schedule.

Bakary Kora of Upper Fuladu West and Almaneh Gibba of Foni Kansala voiced similar concerns, describing the bill as vague and potentially unconstitutional. Gibba called for a complete redraft, warning that the bill’s broad scope could conflict with constitutional provisions specific to judges. Their critiques underscored fears that the legislation might overstep parliamentary authority or undermine judicial autonomy.

In contrast, Samba Jallow of Niamina Dankunku defended the bill, likening Parliament’s responsibility to legislate for the judiciary to its National Assembly Service Act 2022. Deputy Majority Leader Abdoulie Ceesay echoed this, arguing that competitive remuneration is essential to protect judges from external pressures and ensure impartiality.

Addressing the concerns, Attorney General Jallow admitted that the published schedule inadvertently excluded magistrates, cadis, and other judicial officers. He committed to circulating a revised version before the consideration stage and urged lawmakers to expedite the process, citing the judiciary’s urgent need for such legislation. “This is a small bill with significant impact,” Jallow said, emphasizing the need to address decades-long legislative gaps.

The bill’s referral to the Assembly Business Committee, per Order 68 of the Standing Orders, marks a key step toward formalizing judicial conditions of service. However, unresolved issues regarding pension terms, the bill’s scope, and constitutional alignment signal rigorous scrutiny ahead. As the committee reviews the legislation, stakeholders await clarity on whether the bill will deliver on its promise to strengthen The Gambia’s judiciary or require further refinement to meet constitutional and practical standards.