44/90 : Peoples' Democratic Organisation for Independence and
Socialism / Gambia
Summary of Facts
1. The complaint alleges that voter registration in the constituencies of Serrekunda West,
Serrekunda East and Bakau was defective because those registering were not required by the law to
give an address or identification. It argues that there was no control over voter registration since no
documents have to be shown to the registration officer. The voter may be asked his name and
citizenship, but there is no requirement to produce an address or compound number. Furthermore, the
witness is not required to identify himself. The Complainant argued that the absence of a requirement
to produce an address or compound number makes it possible for the voter to forge his right to vote in
the constituency, or to vote several times.
2. In the rural areas the registration of the voters and the voting procedure itself are controlled by the
headman, the registration officer, representatives of different political parties, and village elders. In the
urban areas the control is only done by the registration officer, who does not know the people. Without
the street address or compound number it is impossible for the registration officer to control the
identity of the voter, even though they must sign a form of registration and enclose a photograph,
because the signature could be forged and the lack of communication between different
constituencies could make it possible for the voter to register in several stations.
3. The Complainant argues that the registration by street address and compound number is possible,
since most urban areas in The Gambia have street address or compound number.
4. The Complainant argues that, based on its observations of voter registration, there is widespread
fraud.
According to the Government
5. The government argued firstly that the case was inadmissible because it could be taken through
the courts to the level of the (British) Privy Council.
6. The complainant pointed out that the (Gambian) Elections Act, Section 22(5), states that the
judgment of the Gambian Supreme Court shall be final and conclusive; thus, appeal to the Privy
Council is impossible.
7. As to the merits, the State originally claimed that The Gambia does hold free and fair elections.
8. In the urban areas a form was signed and address and compound number, occupation,
constituency and photo, were included wherever possible. These were checked by the registration
officer both at registration and at the elections, providing adequate protection against fraud. Likewise,
in the rural areas, the personal identification by the village headman took place both at registration and
at the elections.
9. The state claimed that it is almost impossible in a developing country like the Gambia to ensure
control by street addresses and compound number. Many dwellings in the Gambia, including in the
urban areas, do not have street addresses and compound numbers, but are registered in the names
of the owners. It is therefore impossible to make this requirement absolute.
10. The state further argued that it is impossible to require showing of identity papers at the time of
registration and election as a high percentage of the population does not have identification papers. It
was not before 1985 that a National Identity Card was introduced and now not more than 50% of the
population has been registered.
11. In July 1994 there was a change of government in The Gambia. The present government strongly
condemns the claims of the previous government that the streets of Serrekunda were not named with
sufficient specificity to permit making a street address a mandatory requirement for voter registration.
The present government calls this claim ‘inexcusable and indefensible’.
12. The present government, by its ‘Admission of Communication No. from the Peoples Democratic
Organisation for Independence and Socialism-PDOIS against the State of The Gambia’ concedes that
the grievances expressed by the complainants are valid and logical. It expressed its intent to change
the current system to correct the present ‘anomalies.’
Procedure
th
13. The communication is dated 19 June 1990 The Commission was seized of the communication
th
th
at the 8 Session and the government of The Gambia was notified on 6 November 1990. From 1990
to 1995, the Commission proceeded to verify the exhaustion of local remedies.
th
14. At the 17 session the communication was declared admissible on the basis that exhaustion of
local remedies had been unduly prolonged.
th
15. On 20 April 1995 a letter was sent to the Complainants and the Gambian Government, stating
that the communication was admissible.
16. The Commission received a letter from the Attorney General’s Chambers and Ministry of Justice
of The Gambia, conceding that the grievances expressed by the Complainants are valid and logical,
and that the present electoral law is being reviewed with the objective of curing the present anomalies.
th
17. On 20 December 1995, the Complainant was informed of this response with the specification
that if the Secretariat does not receive arguments to the contrary before the 1st February 1996, the
Commission would consider the communication to have been resolved amicably.
Law
Admissibility
18. The PDOIS argued that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the judiciary to order Parliament to
change defective procedures and laws; thus, recourse to the courts was not an option. The
Complainant alleged that, while the Elections Act provides for objections to voter lists to be made
before a revising officer appointed by the Supervisor of Elections, the fact that the voter lists posted
did not include a list of addresses made effective scrutiny impossible. The complaint noted that
numerous letters had been addressed to the Supervisor of Elections and the President of the Republic
as early as 1987 with no response.
19. The Government noted that in July 1990, the complainant did file a Notice of Objection and sent it
to the Commissioner of Western Division. The document was forwarded to the Revising Court. No
action appeared to have been taken by the court.
20. On the basis of these facts the communication was declared admissible.
Merits
21. Article 13 of the African Charter reads:
Every citizen shall have the right to participate freely in the government of his country, either directly or
through freely chosen representatives in accordance with the provision of the law.
22. In 1994 there was a change of government in The Gambia. The present government recognises
that it has inherited the previous government’s rights and obligations under international treaties.
23. The present government has a different view of voter registration. It concedes that the grievances
expressed by the Complainants are valid and logical. It describes that it is in the process of
establishing an independent electoral commission and has commissioned a team of experts to review
the present electoral law.
24. The African Commission welcomes the acceptance of the Complainant’s contentions and the
government’s stated determination to review the current electoral law, in order to ensure that elections
are regular, free and fair.
Holding
For these reasons, the Commission holds that the above communication has reached an amicable resolution.
th
Taken at the 20 Ordinary Session, Grand Bay, Mauritius, October 1996.