Gambia: Administrative Courts Abolition Urged to Bolster Judicial Independence

• A truly democratic society should prevent the executive from establishing quasi-judicial administrative courts.
• Commissions of inquiry ought to serve solely as mechanisms for addressing claims of administrative wrongdoing.
• Allegations of misconduct handled by these commissions could result in the suspension or dismissal of appointed individuals.
• Individuals subject to such actions include those appointed by the Public Service Commission, the President, or other appointing authorities.

A truly democratic society, it is argued, should fundamentally preclude the executive branch from establishing its own quasi-judicial administrative courts.

A truly democratic society, it is argued, should fundamentally preclude the executive branch from establishing its own quasi-judicial administrative courts. This perspective highlights a critical concern regarding the separation of powers and the potential for executive overreach into judicial functions. The ongoing discussion around limiting the adjudicatory powers of executive-created quasi-judicial bodies in The Gambia, and the redefinition of Commissions of Inquiry, stems from a belief that such bodies, when created by the executive, can undermine the impartiality and independence essential for a robust legal system. This stance suggests that allowing the executive to create and oversee tribunals that exercise judicial-like powers can blur the lines between governance and adjudication. For lawyers in The Gambia, this debate signals potential shifts in the legal landscape, particularly concerning jurisdictional challenges and the legitimacy of decisions issued by existing administrative and quasi-judicial bodies. The core principle at stake is ensuring that justice is administered by independent courts, free from executive influence.

In this context, the proper function of commissions of inquiry is also brought into sharp focus. These bodies, it is asserted, ought to function strictly as mechanisms for investigating claims of administrative wrongdoing. Their findings should primarily lead to administrative consequences, such as the suspension or dismissal of individuals, rather than acting as full-fledged judicial tribunals capable of issuing binding legal judgments. The Court of Appeal in The Gambia ruled in June 2020 that a Commission of Inquiry report is not a legal judgment and its findings are merely advisory, not conclusive and binding. The Attorney General would need to take appropriate legal steps through the law courts to enforce liabilities based on Commission findings.

Specifically, these individuals include those appointed by the Public Service Commission, the President, or any other designated appointing authority. This proposed limitation on the scope of Gambia quasi-judicial bodies aims to clarify their role within the broader legal framework, ensuring they do not usurp the powers traditionally reserved for the judiciary. This reform would delineate a clear boundary for Gambia commissions of inquiry, preventing them from becoming instruments of executive adjudication.

The push for limiting the adjudicatory powers of executive-created quasi-judicial bodies and the redefinition of commissions of inquiry carries significant implications for the nation's governance structure and legal reform administrative law. By restricting the executive's ability to establish quasi-judicial bodies, the aim is to strengthen the judiciary's role as the sole arbiter of legal disputes, thereby reinforcing the separation of powers in The Gambia. This potential shift could impact the enforceability of decisions from such bodies and necessitate a re-evaluation of procedural fairness arguments in cases previously handled by executive-established tribunals. The role of elected representatives in upholding these principles and shaping the nation's legal framework is implicitly underscored, even as the full extent of their expected actions remains a subject of ongoing discussion. Ultimately, these reforms seek to align the country's legal and administrative structures more closely with the tenets of a genuine democratic society.

Lawyers in The Gambia should monitor ongoing discussions and potential legislative changes regarding the structure and legitimacy of administrative and quasi-judicial courts, as these developments could impact jurisdictional challenges, procedural fairness arguments, and the enforceability of decisions from such bodies. This article signals a potential shift in the legal landscape concerning executive-established tribunals.

Source: Original reporting via The Need To Do Away With Administrative Courts