The State opened its defence on Wednesday in the Supreme Court case challenging the constitutionality of The Gambia’s ban on female genital mutilation (FGM). Agi Sainey Kah, deputy legal officer for procedures at the National Assembly, was the first witness called. Kah testified that the Women’s (Amendment) Bill, 2015, underwent all required legislative processes before its passage. State Counsel A.A. Wakawa represented the first defendant, while Y. Senghore appeared for the second and L.K. Mboge for the third. Kah, who works at the National Assembly, confirmed that "all proceedings relating to the bill were recorded, transcribed and signed at the National Assembly," adding that "the Office of the Clerk is the custodian of all Assembly documents" and "parliamentary sittings are electronically recorded." She stated the legislative record was signed by the National Assembly.
Legislative Process Testimony
Agi Sainey Kah's testimony was derived from the legislative records of the Women’s (Amendment) Bill, 2015. Kah stated that "all proceedings relating to the bill were recorded, transcribed and signed at the National Assembly." She added that the Assembly utilizes an electronic recording system, confirming that "parliamentary sittings are electronically recorded." Kah further testified that "the legislative record relating to the Women’s (Amendment) Bill was signed by the National Assembly," and emphasized that "the Office of the Clerk is the custodian of all Assembly documents." Before its introduction to the National Assembly, the bill underwent a consultation process initiated by the executive, specifically led by the then Vice President, Dr Isatou Njie Saidy. Following this, the bill proceeded through both its first and second readings in Parliament.
Evidence Admissibility Debate
The State sought to tender the legislative records as evidence in the Supreme Court case. Lawyers L.J. Darboe and B. Badjie appeared for the plaintiffs during this proceeding. The plaintiffs argued that "the document constituted computer-generated evidence and asked the court to reject it." State Counsel Wakawa opposed this application, stating that "the witness had not described the document as computer-generated but as an official transcript prepared by the National Assembly’s transcription department." Wakawa further argued that "the document was admissible under Section 3 of the Evidence Act and urged the court to admit it." The State Counsel also clarified that the document was signed in Banjul. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected the application to expunge the document, marking it as Exhibit D1. Following this decision, the Supreme Court admitted the legislative record of the Women’s (Amendment) Bill, 2015 into evidence.
Next Steps and Background
Counsel for the plaintiffs objected, stating that "the transcript was a computer-generated document and should comply with Section 22(2) of the Evidence Act by being accompanied by the required certificate." They further argued that "the document constituted computer-generated evidence and asked the court to reject it." The plaintiffs also requested the court expunge the affidavit, contending it was not sworn on oath but merely signed by the National Assembly. The Supreme Court subsequently adjourned the case. The hearing is scheduled to continue on Thursday, 9 July 2026, at 1 p.m.