Supreme Court rejects plaintiffs' bid to expunge National Assembly records on 2015 Women's Amendment Bill in FGM Case

The ruling came during the testimony of the State's first witness, Agi Secka, an Assistant Clerk responsible for procedural matters at the National Assembly, who appeared before the court to produce records concerning the enactment of the Women's (Amendment) Act, 2015. The proceedings followed Tuesday's ruling by the Supreme Court closing the plaintiffs' case after they failed to produce their final witness. The plaintiffs had sought to rely on the affidavit of a witness residing in the United States, explaining that financial constraints prevented her from traveling to The Gambia to testify. Senior Counsel Lamin J. Darboe applied for the affidavit to be admitted into evidence and indicated that he preferred the witness to testify virtually. The application was opposed by the defendants, who argued that the plaintiffs had previously been granted sufficient opportunity to file the affidavit and facilitate the witness's virtual appearance. The court subsequently closed the plaintiffs' case and directed the State to begin presenting its evidence. Led in evidence by State Counsel A.A. Wakawa, Secka adopted her affidavit as her evidence-in-chief and told the court that it reflected the proceedings surrounding the Women's (Amendment) Bill, 2015. She testified that the legislative process was officially recorded, transcribed and signed by the National Assembly. The State subsequently sought to tender the legislative records as evidence. Counsel B. Badjie, appearing for the plaintiffs alongside Senior Counsel Lamin J. Darboe, objected to the admissibility of the documents, arguing that they were computer-generated evidence and, under Section 22(2) of the Evidence Act, should have been accompanied by the certificate required by law before being admitted. Counsel submitted that the documents failed to satisfy the statutory requirements governing the admissibility of computer-generated evidence. Responding, State Counsel Wakawa argued that the witness had not described the documents as computer-generated but as official transcripts prepared by the National Assembly. He further submitted that the documents were admissible under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, which preserves the general rules governing the admissibility of evidence, and urged the court to admit them. Badjie maintained that the documents were electronically generated and insisted they did not meet the legal requirements for admissibility. The Supreme Court overruled the objection and admitted the National Assembly records into evidence, holding that the documents were relevant and essential to the issues before the court. During cross-examination, the witness confirmed that she serves as Deputy Legal Officer for Procedural Matters at the National Assembly and that the Office of the Clerk is the custodian of all parliamentary records. She acknowledged that the Assembly uses an electronic recording system during its sittings but maintained that the records relating to the Women's (Amendment) Bill were official parliamentary documents signed by the National Assembly. Following the cross-examination, plaintiffs' counsel applied for the court to expunge the admitted document, arguing that it had not been sworn on oath but merely signed by the National Assembly. State Counsel Wakawa opposed the application, submitting that the document was properly executed and formed part of the official legislative record. In its ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the application to expunge the document and formally marked the National Assembly records as Exhibit D1. Continuing her testimony, the witness told the court the enactment of the Women's (Amendment) Act followed consultations led by the Executive, including the then Vice President, Dr Isatou Njie Saidy, before the Bill underwent its first and second readings in the National Assembly. The case was subsequently adjourned till today.