Louis Jobe
The Brikama Revising Court has dismissed an objection against the registration of Amie Preira as a voter in the Kombo East Constituency, ruling that the objector failed to prove that she was not a Gambian citizen or that she was not born or resident in the constituency.
The judgment was delivered on Tuesday, 22 September 2026, by Chief Magistrate Phatey, following an objection filed by Nyimanding Fofana against Preira’s registration.
Fofana, who is also a registered voter in the Kombo East Constituency and resides in Bonto, filed the objection on 20 July 2026. She argued that Preira was not a citizen of The Gambia and was neither born nor resident in the constituency. Preira denied the claims and told the court that she was born and raised in Bonto. The case proceeded to trial, with both sides calling one witness and presenting exhibits.
Fofana told the court that she did not believe Preira was Gambian and said she did not know her in Bonto. According to Fofana, Preira did not present a Gambian document when she went to the voter registration centre. Instead, she obtained an attestation from the Alkalo of Bonto, Lamin Kebbeh, and used it to register as a voter. Fofana said her suspicion led her to record Preira’s name and later file the objection.
During cross-examination, however, Fofana acknowledged that she knew about late birth registration and that some older people were not registered at birth. She also admitted that she did not know where Preira came from and did not know everyone living in Bonto. Fofana further confirmed that she was not born in Bonto and that the attestation used by Preira was issued by the Alkalo. She also accepted that the Alkalo could issue attestations to elderly people who had not been registered at birth.
Most importantly, Fofana told the court that she had no proof to establish that Preira was not Gambian. Preira, a farmer and resident of Bonto, told the court that she did not know Fofana. She maintained that she was born and raised in Bonto and produced her voter card as an exhibit. Preira also told the court that she had previously had a birth certificate but had lost it. She said she tried to obtain another one but was unsuccessful.
During cross-examination, she maintained that she had possessed a birth certificate, which she later lost.
In his judgment, Magistrate Phatey said the central issue was whether Fofana had established the grounds of her objection. The court referred to section 141(1) of the Evidence Act 1994, which states: “A person who desires a court to give judgement as to a legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he or she asserts must prove that those facts exist.” The judge explained the principle simply as: “he who asserts must prove.”
The court also referred to section 30 of the Elections Act 2025, which provides that proceedings before a Revising Court must follow the law and rules of evidence applicable to civil cases before a Magistrate Court. Under section 143(1) of the Evidence Act 1994, the court said, the burden of proving the facts supporting an objection rests with the objector.
“In this case, the objector claims that the person objected to is not Gambian and that she was not born and is not resident in the Kombo East Constituency,” the judgment said.
“Therefore, the objector must prove these claims, especially since the person objected to vehemently denies them.”
The court found that Fofana’s objection was based largely on suspicion arising from the fact that Preira used an attestation to register as a voter rather than a birth certificate, Gambian passport or National Identity Card.
“Apart from her oral testimony, the objector presented no further evidence to substantiate her claim that the person objected to is not Gambian and is not resident in Bonto, or the Constituency where she registered,” the judgment said.
The court noted that Preira, in her evidence, maintained that she was born and raised in Bonto and that she was Gambian. The judge said that an assertion based on suspicion, without proof, was not enough to require Preira to prove her nationality. The court also considered the role of the attestation issued by the Alkalo. The judgment noted that section 13 of the Elections Act 2025 sets out the requirements for qualification to register as a voter.
The court said it was “common ground” that Preira’s name had been entered on the register of voters for the Kombo East Constituency, but that her registration had been challenged on the grounds of citizenship and residence. The judgment also considered Fofana’s evidence about whether Preira was known in Bonto.
The court identified what it described as inconsistencies in Fofana’s testimony. Fofana had said she did not know or recognise Preira in Bonto. But, according to the judgment, she later indicated that Preira had relocated to Bonto and even identified where she lived. The court questioned how Fofana could know when Preira came to Bonto and where she lived if she did not know or recognise her there.
“The latter part of her evidence suggests that the person objected to lives in Bonto,” the judgment said.
After considering the evidence, the court found that the objection had not been established.
“In light of the foregoing, I find that the objector has failed to prove the grounds of her objection against the registration of the person she objected to, and to establish that the person’s name shall not be retained on the register of voters,” the judge ruled.
“The objector’s case is dismissed.”
The court said Preira’s registration on the voters’ register was therefore valid and that her name should remain on the register for the Kombo East Constituency.
The parties were absent when the judgment was delivered. R.M. Aberuba appeared for the objector.
The court reminded the parties of their right of appeal.
The judgment was dated 22 September 2026.
You need to login to view and post FB Comments!
