By Louise Jobe
A magistrate at the Basse Revising Court has ordered the removal of Maimuna Jawo from the voter list after finding that the attestation she used to register lacked the signature or thumbprint of the issuing Alkalo.
Senior Magistrate M. S. Dem made the ruling on 22 September 2026 in a case brought by Ebrima Camara, who challenged Jawo’s eligibility to remain on the voter list for Tumana Constituency. The objection was filed under Section 25(3) of the Elections Act, 2025, on the grounds that Jawo was under 18 and would not attain the required age by the next election, as required by Section 13(1) of the Act.
The objector’s supervisor, who testified as the first witness, told the court that he had served as a political party agent supervisor during the 2026 Supplementary Voter Registration exercise.
He said Jawo presented an attestation from an Alkalo when she went to register as a voter. However, during cross-examination, the witness admitted that his objection was based entirely on personal suspicion arising from her use of the attestation. At the close of the objector’s case, counsel for Jawo informed the court that the defence would not call any witnesses and would rely on the evidence already presented.
Counsel for Ebrima Camara argued that the burden of proof in revising court proceedings was based on the balance of probabilities. He submitted that the burden had shifted to Jawo because she had not presented evidence in court to establish her age. Citing Section 148 of the Evidence Act, counsel argued that a person’s date of birth was a matter within their personal knowledge. He further submitted that since Jawo had registered using an attestation rather than a birth certificate, she should be required to prove the validity of the document and the information it contained. Counsel urged the court to remove her name from the voter list if she failed to do so.
In response, counsel for Jawo argued that the responsibility to prove her ineligibility rested with the objector, who had failed to provide sufficient evidence. The lawyer submitted that suspicion alone, no matter how strong, could not establish a case without supporting evidence. Counsel also argued that the attestation presented to the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) should be presumed valid until evidence proved otherwise.
In reply, counsel for Camara argued that the Elections Act did not give the IEC the power to reject an attestation during registration, which was why such objections were brought before revising courts.
In his judgment, Magistrate Dem said the burden of proving a claim rested on the person asking the court to accept it. He referred to Sections 141 to 143 and Section 145 of the Evidence Act, as well as the case of O’Corporation Ltd v. TK Motors Ltd (2014–2015) GSCLR 1.
The magistrate held that anyone challenging a voter’s eligibility on grounds of age must provide clear, reliable and admissible evidence to support the objection. He rejected the argument that the burden automatically shifted to Jawo because her actual age was a matter within her knowledge.
The magistrate said Section 148 of the Evidence Act did not remove the objector’s responsibility to establish an initial basis for the claim. He noted that the objector had produced no primary records to contradict the age declared during registration. The court also referred to the Supreme Court decision in Senchim AG v. Sangol Holding Co. Ltd (2010–2012) GSCLR 406 at pages 424–425. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a party bringing a civil claim must prove it on the balance of probabilities and cannot rely on the weakness of the other party’s case.
Magistrate Dem said allegations that could lead to the removal of a citizen from the voter list must be supported by credible evidence. He described suspicion as insufficient to establish a legal claim, saying the court could only act on evidence rather than personal doubts or assumptions. The magistrate added that the absence of a birth certificate did not, by itself, establish that a person was underage.
Under Section 13(2) of the Elections Act, 2025, a person seeking voter registration may establish eligibility by presenting one of several documents, including a Gambian birth certificate, passport, national identity card or an attestation issued by an Alkalo or Seyfo.
Section 13(3) provides that valid documents submitted under the preceding subsection cannot be arbitrarily rejected by the registering authority.
The magistrate said an Alkalo’s attestation was a legally recognised means of establishing eligibility for voter registration. He also referred to the Nigerian Supreme Court case of Buhari v. Obasanjo (2005) 2 NWLR (Pt. 910) 241 in discussing the presumption that official documents are regular until displaced by evidence. However, after examining Jawo’s attestation, the magistrate found that it did not bear the signature or thumbprint of the issuing Alkalo, identified in the judgment as Samba Baldeh of Sendebou.
The court held that the omission meant the document could not be enforced against the purported issuing Alkalo and could not be relied upon to establish eligibility for voter registration. The magistrate ruled that the attestation was materially defective, lacked evidential value and was invalid.
Following that finding, the court sustained the objection and ordered that Jawo’s name, under voter card number 126260421100935, be expunged from the voter list. The judgment was delivered on 22 September 2026, and the parties were reminded of their right to appeal.
Facebook Notice for EU! You need to login to view and post FB Comments!