A 1998 Judicial Service Commission Letter Rekindles the Debate Over Edi Faal’s Qualifications

By Alagi Yorro Jallow

A judicial document that remained out of public view for nearly three decades has resurfaced, injecting new historical context into the ongoing debate over the appointment of lawyer Edi M.O. Faal. The 1998 letter from The Gambia’s Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has reopened discussion about constitutional interpretation, institutional memory, and the country’s judicial history.

The controversy surrounding Mr. Faal’s appointment has generated intense legal and political debate. However, the discussion took a new turn after court reporter Kemeseng Sanneh drew public attention to the existence of the 1998 correspondence through a Facebook post. That revelation prompted further examination of archival records, leading to the rediscovery of what appears to be a significant historical document.

Dated 15 June 1998, the letter was addressed to:

EDI M.O. FAAL (ESQ)
Attorney
221 N. Figueroa, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90012.

According to the document, the Judicial Service Commission informed Mr. Faal:

> “You have been identified as one of the Legal Practitioners who can grace this new Court with your presence.”
It further stated:

“I have been directed to inquire whether you would be interested in appointment as Justice of the Supreme Court of The Gambia.”
The correspondence indicates that the Commission considered Mr. Faal among the Gambian legal practitioners it wished to recruit as the newly established Supreme Court was being constituted following the adoption of the 1997 Constitution.
At the time, the Attorney General and Minister of Justice was Hawa Sisay-Sabally, while Fatou Bensouda served as Solicitor General. Both were central figures in establishing the country’s post-1997 constitutional and judicial framework. The article argues that if constitutional provisions had disqualified Mr. Faal at the time, the Judicial Service Commission would not have formally invited him to serve.
The rediscovered letter has also revived discussion over the interpretation of Section 139 of the Constitution. Critics of Mr. Faal’s appointment have cited that provision in questioning his eligibility, while supporters argue that the Commission’s 1998 invitation demonstrates that his qualifications had already been assessed and accepted by the constitutionally mandated body responsible for judicial appointments.
The article further notes that the Commission’s letter emphasized the importance of encouraging Gambian lawyers in the diaspora to contribute to national development and the strengthening of the country’s judiciary. It contends that the constitutional framework envisaged participation by qualified Gambian legal practitioners living abroad.
Another point highlighted is that Mr. Faal ultimately did not accept the reported invitation to join the Supreme Court in 1998. The commentary argues that this challenges assertions that his present appointment is motivated by personal career considerations, maintaining instead that the State initially approached him rather than the other way around.
The article also places the letter within the broader historical context of the Gambianisation of the judiciary, observing that Justice Gibril B. Semega-Janneh became the first Gambian-born Justice of the Supreme Court in 2002. It suggests that Mr. Faal formed part of an earlier group of Gambian lawyers whom the Judicial Service Commission had hoped would serve on the country’s highest court.
The commentary questions why the constitutional objections now being raised were not publicly advanced when the Commission made its original approach in 1998. It argues that the present debate reflects broader disagreements over constitutional interpretation, institutional memory, and the evolving role of the legal profession in public affairs.
The rediscovered Judicial Service Commission letter, the article concludes, adds an important historical document to the ongoing national conversation. Whether it ultimately settles the constitutional questions remains open to legal interpretation, but it undeniably provides fresh evidence of how the State viewed Mr. Faal’s qualifications nearly three decades ago.

Editorial Note**
This article is based on archival material, including a copy of the 15 June 1998 Judicial Service Commission letter addressed to Mr. Edi M.O. Faal. The constitutional implications of the document remain matters of legal interpretation and public debate. Readers are encouraged to examine the available evidence and consider a range of informed legal perspectives