By Mariama Marong
The Kanifing Revising Court has dismissed an objection challenging Muhammed Sissoho’s name on the voters’ register for Bakau, ruling that the evidence presented failed to prove that he was not a Gambian citizen or qualified to vote.
Magistrate Isatou Jallow, who delivered the judgment, said a person’s name could not be removed from the voters’ register simply because another person suspected that they were a foreign national.
The objection was filed by Fatou Darboe, who alleged that Sissoho was a Malian national and would not be 18 years old by the 2026 elections. However, the court found that her claims were largely based on suspicion rather than evidence.
In dismissing the objection, the court stressed that although the law allows registered voters to challenge the eligibility of people on the voters’ register, those allegations must be supported by sufficient evidence.
“The Court cannot expunge a person’s name from the voters’ register merely because one person suspects that the person is a foreign national,” the ruling stated.
Darboe appeared before the court to support her objection, while Sissoho was absent throughout the proceedings despite substituted service by publication, according to an affidavit of service dated 16 September 2026. His lawyer, however, appeared and represented his interests.
Counsel for Sissoho denied the allegations on his behalf and maintained that his client was a Gambian citizen.
Testifying as the first witness, Darboe told the court that she was a registered voter residing in Bakau and had participated in the 2026 supplementary voter registration exercise as a polling agent.
She said she filed the objection because she believed Sissoho was not a Gambian citizen and should therefore not be allowed to vote in the elections.
Darboe told the court that she had been advised to bring her concerns before the Revising Court.
She explained that her suspicion arose from Sissoho’s past residence in her family compound in Bakau, where he had been treated like a member of the family.
According to her testimony, Sissoho arrived in The Gambia as a young boy and used to water her grandparents’ garden. However, she could not remember exactly when he arrived in the country.
During cross-examination, Darboe admitted that she had no documentary evidence proving that Sissoho was a foreign national.
She also acknowledged that she had not personally examined the documents he presented during voter registration to establish their validity, although she understood that he had submitted a birth certificate and a national identity card.
Darboe further admitted that she had inspected the birth certificate and considered it authentic.
She accepted that a birth certificate, a National Identification Card or an attestation from an Alkalo could be used as supporting documentation for voter registration under the applicable electoral framework.
Despite these admissions, she maintained her suspicion that someone had helped Sissoho obtain his birth certificate.
However, she could not identify the person she suspected or bring them before the court to support the allegation.
She also admitted that she did not know Sissoho’s age when he arrived in The Gambia and could not provide the exact name of the compound where he had lived in Bakau.
Although she acknowledged that Gambian law provides ways for foreign nationals to acquire citizenship, she continued to insist that Sissoho was not Gambian.
The court also heard evidence from Lamin B. Fatty, the Director of Births and Deaths at the Ministry of Health.
Fatty explained that his responsibilities include overseeing the registration of births and deaths and ensuring that certificates are issued to eligible applicants.
He told the court that birth registration ordinarily begins with information recorded on the mother’s antenatal card, including the date and place of birth, the time of birth, the child’s gender and the mother’s name.
The information is then taken to the Public Health Office, where an Infant Welfare Card containing the child’s details is issued.
For births that occur outside hospitals, Fatty explained that authorities rely on an attestation from the relevant Alkalo, District Chief or municipal Chief Executive before issuing a birth certificate.
However, he told the court that he could not verify Sissoho’s birth certificate because it was among older certificates issued before the introduction of the current digitalised system.
Fatty explained that the numbers printed on older birth certificates were production numbers rather than serial numbers that could be used to verify the documents through the department’s system.
By contrast, newer digitalised certificates contain alphanumeric identification numbers that allow officials to verify them.
During cross-examination, Fatty confirmed that the information available to him was insufficient to determine whether Sissoho’s birth certificate was valid. He said he could neither produce a copy of the certificate nor confirm that it was invalid.
Following the evidence presented by Darboe, counsel for Sissoho told the court that he did not intend to open a defence, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to require his client to respond to the allegations.
In determining the objection, Magistrate Jallow focused on whether Darboe had established that Sissoho was not entitled to have his name retained on the voters’ register.
The court found that Darboe had failed to provide direct evidence proving that Sissoho was a foreign national. It also found that she had not established that he was a citizen of another country.
Magistrate Jallow noted that the objection was largely based on Darboe’s account of Sissoho’s childhood in her family compound and her belief that someone had helped him obtain his birth certificate.
The court also noted that Darboe had acknowledged the apparent authenticity of the certificate and confirmed that electoral officials had not raised an objection to it during the registration process.
However, the magistrate clarified that the ruling did not mean a birth certificate was conclusive proof of Gambian citizenship in every circumstance.
Rather, the question was whether the evidence presented in this particular case established that Sissoho was not qualified to remain on the voters’ register.
Referring to Section 28(2)(b) of the Elections Act, 2025, the court explained that an objection must satisfy the legal requirement for establishing that a person is not entitled to have their name retained on the register.
The magistrate said the law allows people with genuine concerns about voter eligibility to bring objections before a Revising Court, but filing an objection does not automatically establish the allegations.
The court stressed that the integrity of the electoral process depends on the proper examination of questionable registrations, while making clear that claims brought before the court must be supported by evidence.
After considering the evidence as a whole, the court concluded that Darboe had failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that Sissoho was not a Gambian citizen or was otherwise unqualified to remain on the voters’ register.
Magistrate Jallow acknowledged the importance of maintaining an accurate and credible voters’ register, describing the objection procedure under the Elections Act, 2025, as an important safeguard against the registration of ineligible voters. However, she emphasised that the process must be conducted in accordance with the law and supported by sufficient evidence.
The court said allegations concerning citizenship and voter eligibility must be established through evidence rather than suspicion, physical appearance, community comments or other considerations that do not prove the legal grounds for an objection.
Magistrate Jallow subsequently dismissed Darboe’s objection and ordered that Sissoho’s name be retained on the voters’ register for the relevant constituency. The court also directed that the appropriate entry be made in the voters’ list in accordance with Section 28(6) of the Elections Act, 2025.