By Mariama Marong
The Kanifing Revising Court has dismissed an objection by Fatou Darboe challenging Amadou Drammeh’s eligibility to remain on the voters’ register in Bakau. The Magistrate ruled that she failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that he was not a Gambian citizen.
Magistrate Isatou Jallow, who presided over the case, ordered that Drammeh’s name be retained on the voters’ register in the relevant constituency in accordance with Section 28(6) of the Elections Act, 2025.
Fatou Darboe had challenged Amadou Drammeh’s registration on two grounds, arguing that he was not a Gambian citizen and would not attain the age of 18 by the 2026 elections. Testifying before the court, Darboe, a registered voter residing in Bakau, said she had participated in the 2026 supplementary voter registration exercise as a polling agent for the United Democratic Party (UDP). She told the court that she raised the objection after examining Drammeh’s registration documents, including his birth certificate and identification card, but remained unconvinced that he was Gambian.
Darboe also questioned Drammeh’s knowledge of his origins in Bakau, arguing that he could not identify the specific home from which he came. However, during cross-examination, she admitted that her belief that Drammeh was not Gambian was based largely on suspicions about his documents and the circumstances surrounding his registration. She acknowledged that he had presented a birth certificate and an identification card, although she alleged that someone had helped him obtain the documents.
The objector further admitted that she had inspected the birth certificate and found it to be authentic. She also confirmed that Independent Electoral Commission agents had not raised any objection during Drammeh’s registration.
Darboe conceded that she had no documentary evidence to establish that Drammeh was a foreign national. She also failed to identify or call as a witness the person she alleged had helped him obtain his birth certificate.
A second witness, Binta Marena, who lives in Bakau New Town and works as a polling agent for the United Democratic Party, told the court that she knew nothing about the case. She was subsequently discharged without cross-examination. After the objector closed her case, counsel for Drammeh declined to open a defence, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient to warrant one.
Counsel Haruna Farage maintained that Darboe had failed to establish the allegations against his client and that her testimony provided no sufficient basis for upholding the objection. Although Drammeh was absent throughout the proceedings, his counsel appeared to represent his interests.
In assessing the evidence, Magistrate Jallow found that Darboe had failed to establish that Drammeh was a citizen of another country or successfully challenge the validity of his birth certificate. The magistrate said the objection was based substantially on suspicion arising from the circumstances surrounding Drammeh’s registration.
She emphasised that under Section 28(2)(b) of the Elections Act, 2025, a person’s name can only be removed from the voters’ register if the court is satisfied that the individual is not entitled to have it retained.
The burden, she said, rested on Darboe to provide sufficient evidence to support her allegation that Drammeh was not a Gambian citizen.
While acknowledging the importance of allowing citizens to raise genuine concerns about voter registration, the court stressed that filing an objection does not automatically establish the allegations made against a registered voter.
“Once the matter comes before the Court for determination, suspicion must give way to evidence,” the court stated in its judgment.
It further cautioned that a person’s name could not be removed from the voters’ register simply because another individual suspected that the person was a foreign national.
Magistrate Jallow said decisions on voter eligibility must be based on evidence properly presented before the court, rather than suspicion, physical appearance, community comments or other considerations that do not establish the legal grounds for an objection.
After considering all the evidence, the court concluded that Darboe had failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that Drammeh was not entitled to remain on the voters’ register.
The magistrate consequently dismissed the objection, ordered that Drammeh’s name be retained on the register in the relevant constituency and directed that the appropriate entry be made in accordance with Section 28(6) of the Elections Act, 2025.
The judgment also stated that any person entitled to appeal who is dissatisfied with the decision on a point of law or a material fact affecting the outcome may give written notice of their intention to appeal to the High Court within two days of the decision, pursuant to Section 32(1) of the Elections Act, 2025.
Facebook Notice for EU! You need to login to view and post FB Comments!