Revising Court Rejects Abdul Karim Drammeh’s Objection to Maimuna Camara’s Voter Registration

By Mariama Marong

The Brusubi Revising Court has dismissed an objection seeking to remove Maimuna Camara from The Gambia’s voters’ register, ruling that the challenger failed to provide enough evidence to show that she was not a Gambian citizen.

Principal Magistrate Mam Samba Jallow dismissed the case brought by Abdul Karim Drammeh under the Elections Act 2025, finding that the evidence before the court did not prove, on the balance of probabilities, that Camara was a foreign national or otherwise ineligible to vote.

The case arose from the 2026 supplementary voter registration exercise, in which Drammeh, a registered voter from Bakau who participated as a polling agent, challenged Camara’s registration. Drammeh told the court that he objected because he believed Camara was not a Gambian citizen. He said he was later advised to take the matter before the Revising Court. But the court found that belief and suspicion were not enough to establish the claim.

The Alkalo of Brufut, who also gave evidence, told the court that he did not personally know Camara. He said he believed that his representative in Ghana Town knew her and that his attestation was based on information provided to him.

In her ruling, Magistrate Jallow said the central question was whether Drammeh had proved that Camara was not a Gambian citizen and was therefore not entitled to remain on the voters’ register.

The magistrate referred to Section 13 of the Elections Act 2025, which sets out the requirements for voter registration. The law recognises documents including a birth certificate, Gambian passport, National Identity Card and prescribed attestation as proof for registration purposes.

The court also relied on Section 28(2)(b) of the Act, which gives a Revising Court the power to remove a person’s name from the voters’ list where it is proved that the person is not entitled to remain registered. But Magistrate Jallow stressed that bringing an objection before the court does not, by itself, prove the allegations made against a voter.

“I further relied on Section 30 of the Elections Act, which provides that the rules of evidence applicable in civil proceedings before a Magistrate Court apply to proceedings before a Revising Court,” she said.

The court found that Drammeh had not produced direct evidence showing that Camara was a foreign national or a citizen of another country. Magistrate Jallow said allegations challenging a person’s right to remain on the voters’ register must be supported by sufficient evidence.

She noted that the Elections Act provides a legal process for people with genuine concerns about voter registration to raise objections. But once such an objection comes before the court, the person making the challenge must prove the grounds on which it is based.

The court said the objector was required to satisfy it, on the balance of probabilities, that Camara did not meet the legal requirements for registration. In the end, the court found that Drammeh had failed to meet that test.

Magistrate Jallow therefore dismissed the objection and ordered that Camara’s name remain on the voters’ register in the relevant constituency. The court also directed that the appropriate entry be made in the voters’ list in accordance with Section 28(6) of the Elections Act 2025.

The judgement means that Camara remains on the voters’ register, after the court found that the evidence presented against her was insufficient to justify her removal.