By Louise Jobe
A magistrate at the Basse Revising Court has ordered the removal of a registered voter from the voter list after finding that the birth certificate presented during registration was not sealed by the Registrar of Births.
Senior Magistrate M. S. Dem made the ruling on 22 September 2026 in a case involving Papa Sey, the objector, and Hagie Marie, the objectee, under case number MSC/RC/66/2026. The case arose from a formal objection filed under Section 25(3) of the Elections Act, 2025, challenging the inclusion of Marie’s name on the voter list compiled during the 2026 Supplementary Voter Registration exercise.
The objection was based on the claim that Marie was under 18 at the time of registration and would not attain the required age by the date of the next election, as required by Section 13(1) of the Elections Act, 2025.
The objector, who testified as the first prosecution witness, told the court that he had served as a political party agent during the voter registration exercise. However, during cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know the Marie’s parents or her actual date of birth.
The magistrate noted that the objection was based on Sey’s personal suspicion rather than concrete evidence of the Marie’s age. At the close of the objector’s case, counsel for the objectee informed the court that they would not call any witnesses and would rely on the evidence presented by the objector.
Counsel for the objector relied on Section 26 of the 1997 Constitution, Section 13(2) of the Elections Act, and previous court decisions, including The Gambia Participates v. The Mayor of Banjul and Others and UDP & Ors. v. A.G. Counsel also cited Section 148 of the Evidence Act, arguing that the burden of proof had shifted to the objectee because her age was a matter within her personal knowledge. Sey’s lawyer further challenged the birth certificate presented during registration, arguing that it lacked a seal and could have been issued by anyone.
Counsel for Marie argued that the laws and court decisions cited by the objector supported the validity of the registration. The lawyer submitted that a birth certificate issued in accordance with Section 13 of the Elections Act was a recognised document for voter registration and could serve as a basis for secondary identification.Counsel urged the court to uphold the registration.
In determining whether the objectee was entitled to remain on the voter list, Magistrate Dem examined the legal burden of proof in cases involving objections to voter registration. The magistrate referred to Sections 141 to 143 and Section 145 of the Evidence Act, which place the burden of proving a fact on the person asking the court to accept that fact.
The court also cited the case of O’Corporation Ltd v. TK Motors Ltd (2014–2015) GSCLR 1. The magistrate held that a person challenging another person’s eligibility to vote on grounds of age must provide clear, reliable and admissible evidence to support the claim. He noted that the objector had admitted under cross-examination that he had no concrete knowledge of the objectee’s date of birth or age.
The magistrate rejected the argument that the burden of proof had shifted to the objectee under Section 148 of the Evidence Act. He said the burden could only shift after the objector had presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case.
In this case, the court found that the objector had produced no primary records or other evidence to contradict the age declared during registration. The magistrate referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Senchim AG v. Sangol Holding Co. Ltd (2010–2012) GSCLR 406 at pages 424–425. The Supreme Court held that, in civil cases, the plaintiff must prove their case on a balance of probabilities and cannot rely on the weakness of the defence.
Applying that principle, Magistrate Dem said Sey must succeed on the strength of their own case rather than on the perceived weakness of the other party’s case. He added that allegations that could deprive a citizen of the right to vote must be strictly proved with credible evidence. Despite questioning the strength of the evidence presented by the objector, the magistrate proceeded to examine the birth certificate submitted during registration.
Section 13(2) of the Elections Act, 2025, allows a person seeking registration to establish eligibility by presenting any one of several documents, including a Gambian birth certificate, passport, national identity card or attestation issued by an Alkalo or Seyfo. Section 13(3) also provides that valid documents submitted under subsection (2) cannot be arbitrarily rejected. However, after examining the birth certificate presented in the case, the magistrate found that it did not bear the seal of the Registrar of Births.
The court held that the document was not properly issued and could not be given evidential weight. The magistrate ruled that the birth certificate was materially defective, lacked probative value and was invalid. Based on that finding, the court held that the objection had merit and that the objectee had failed to establish that she was 18 or would attain the age of 18 by the date of the next election.
The court therefore sustained the objection and ordered that Hagie Marie’s name, under voter card number 045260512134516, be expunged from the voter list. At the end of the judgment, delivered on 22 September 2026, the magistrate reminded the parties of their right to appeal.
Facebook Notice for EU! You need to login to view and post FB Comments!