By Mariama Marong
Sixty-four out of sixty-five voter objection cases brought before the Kanifing Revising Court presided over by Senior Magistrate Isatou Jallow-Sowe did not succeed. Magistrate Jallow has concluded hearing all the cases assigned to her. The revising courts began work on August 24 and were expected to conclude on October 24 throughout the country.
From this, Magistrate Jallow dismis sed 45 cases for lack of evidence and ordering one name to be expunged from the voter registration list. The remaining cases were withdrawn by the parties involved, leaving only one successful application to remove a name from the register.
Most of the dismissals were based on a lack of evidence, as many objectors could not demonstrate personal knowledge of the people whose voter registration they challenged. According to the Magistrate, the objections were often based on suspicions rather than direct knowledge or sufficient evidence to support the allegations. The court has consistently maintained that “suspicion is not proof” and cannot, on its own, provide a basis for upholding an objection.
The cases involved allegations that some registered voters did not live in the areas where they registered, were not Gambian citizens, were underage, lacked valid documents or had been brought to register by members of the National People’s Party (NPP). However, the objectors were required to provide evidence to support their claims. Where sufficient evidence was not presented, the objections could not succeed.
What the Elections Act 2025 says
The proceedings fall under the provisions governing Revising Courts in the Elections Act 2025, which establishes the legal framework for hearing and determining appeals and objections relating to voter registration. Section 27 provides for the appointment of First Class Magistrates to preside over Revising Courts in administrative areas where appeals and objections have been received. It requires the magistrate to decide appeals and objections within 60 days of their lodgement, give at least five clear days’ notice of the hearing and conduct proceedings in public.
Section 28 sets out how Revising Courts should handle objections and appeals. It empowers the court to add a person’s name to the voter register where eligibility has been established and to expunge a name where an objector proves that the person is not entitled to remain on the list. The section also states that an objection must be rejected, and the challenged name retained on the voter list, if the objector fails to appear personally, through a legal practitioner or through a duly authorised representative.
Court’s powers over the voter register
Section 29 gives Revising Courts additional powers to remove the names of deceased persons, correct errors, change a voter’s name or address upon written application, and restore names removed by mistake or add names inadvertently omitted from the register. Section 30 provides that the rules of evidence applicable to civil cases before a Magistrate’s Court also apply to Revising Court proceedings, with the practice and procedure to follow civil court practice as closely as possible. These provisions establish the legal basis for examining the evidence presented by objectors and determining whether a challenge to a person’s voter registration can be upheld.
Right to appeal
The Elections Act 2025 also provides a mechanism for appealing certain Revising Court decisions to the High Court. Under Section 32, a person dissatisfied with a decision on a relevant point of law or a material fact affecting the outcome of a case may give written notice of an intention to appeal within two days of the decision.
The provision covers people whose claims to be registered as voters have been rejected, those who have objected to another person’s registration, people whose names have been expunged from the voter register and those whose claims concerning the list of deletions have been rejected. The Act outlines the procedures for preparing and transmitting cases to the High Court, notifying the parties and correcting the voter register where a decision is reversed or altered.
It further provides that a person’s right to vote is not prejudiced by a pending appeal, provided the person’s name remains on the voter register.
The outcome of the 65 cases before Magistrate Jallow highlights the importance of presenting credible evidence when challenging voter registration. While the law allows objections to be raised against names believed to have been wrongly included on the register, allegations must be supported by evidence capable of satisfying the court.