Explainer: Who are the magistrates presiding over The Gambia’s Revising Courts?

The Gambia’s 2026 electoral process has entered a key legal stage, with magistrates appointed by the Chief Justice now hearing objections to voter registrations from the supplementary registration exercise.

The Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) received 1,694 objections after the provisional voters’ register was published. The objections are being heard by Revising Courts sitting in Kanifing, Bundung, Brikama, Mansakonko, Kerewan, Farafenni, Janjanbureh, Kuntaur, Kaur and Basse.

The hearings are an important step in determining the composition of the final electoral register. Magistrates are examining whether the challenged registrations meet the legal requirements for voter registration and deciding whether disputed names should remain on the register, be removed, restored or corrected

The cases are not about determining who will win the December 5 presidential election. Rather, they deal with a question that comes earlier in the electoral process: who is legally entitled to be registered as a voter and therefore eligible to participate in the election?

Who are the magistrates?

The Chief Justice has appointed 14 magistrates to preside over the Revising Courts hearing objections to the 2026 supplementary voters’ register.

Malagen independently verified the names of the magistrates assigned to the process. They are:

• Mam Samba Jallow
• Rose Mendy
• Isatou Jallow
• Ismaila Dibba
• Muhammed Krubally
• Kebba Baldeh
• Modou S. Dem
• Isatou Sallah M’bai
• David Gomez
• Abubacarr Fofana
• Demba Senghore
• Siloru Sowe
• Marcel L. Thomasi
• Dawda Phodey

Their role comes from the Elections Act 2025, which gives the judiciary a specific function in resolving disputes arising from voter registration.

What are Revising Courts?

A Revising Court is established to hear and determine appeals and objections relating to the voters’ register. Under Section 27 of the Elections Act 2025, the Chief Justice, acting on the advice of the IEC, appoints a First Class Magistrate to establish a Revising Court in each Administrative Area where appeals or objections have been received.

The process begins with the IEC. After conducting voter registration, the commission publishes a provisional register. Where a registration is challenged, the dispute can be taken before a Revising Court, where the magistrate considers the evidence and applies the requirements of the law.

The courts therefore serve as a legal checkpoint between voter registration and the final electoral register.

Their mandate is also different from that of an election petition court. Revising Courts do not determine whether an election was free and fair, decide who won an election or determine who becomes president. Their focus is the eligibility and accuracy of the voters’ register.

Why are the courts sitting now?

The hearings follow the 2026 supplementary voter registration exercise.

After the provisional register was published, members of the public were given an opportunity to challenge registrations they believed did not meet the legal requirements. The IEC subsequently processed the objections and submitted them to the Revising Courts.

The objections are concentrated in some parts of the country. Wuli East recorded 425, Mansa Konko 391 and Kerewan 323, together accounting for more than two-thirds of the total.

Importantly, the IEC has said the objections concern people registered during the 2026 supplementary exercise, rather than voters registered in 2021.

What does the law require of a voter?

The magistrates’ starting point is the Elections Act. Among the requirements for registration, a person must be a Gambian citizen and at least 18 years old by election day. The law also establishes residency or birth requirements relating to the constituency in which a person seeks to register and sets out circumstances in which a person may be disqualified.

Evidence of eligibility may include a birth certificate, Gambian passport, National Identity Card or an attestation from an Alkalo or Seyfo, depending on the circumstances.

The question before the court is therefore whether the challenged registration meets the legal requirements — not simply whether someone believes another person should or should not be allowed to vote.

What can be challenged?

The Elections Act gives members of the public a legal opportunity to challenge the voters’ register before it is finalised. A person who believes that someone has been wrongly included can object to that person’s registration. At the same time, someone who believes they were eligible to register but whose name was left off the provisional register can appeal against their omission.

This means the Revising Court process is not designed solely to remove disputed names. It provides a mechanism to scrutinise the register from both directions, correcting registrations that do not meet the legal requirements while giving eligible voters a route to challenge their exclusion.

The process is therefore intended to help ensure that the final electoral register reflects both who is legally entitled to vote and who should not be registered.

What can the magistrates decide?

The Revising Courts have several powers.

A magistrate can order a person’s name to be added to the register where the court is satisfied that the person is entitled to be registered. A name can also be removed where the person is found to be ineligible, or restored where it was wrongly deleted.

The court can correct apparent errors in the register and, where the legal requirements are met, make changes concerning a voter’s name or address.

The IEC has said the burden of proof rests on the person making the objection. If the evidence does not establish the objection, the challenged registration can remain. Where the objection is proven, the magistrate can order the name to be removed.

The process therefore turns on the evidence presented and the legal requirements for registration.

What happens during a hearing?

At the hearing, the person who has challenged a registration must set out the grounds for the objection and provide evidence to support the claim. The person whose registration is being challenged is given an opportunity to respond and demonstrate that they meet the legal requirements for registration.

The magistrate then considers the evidence presented by both sides and assesses it against the eligibility requirements set out in the Elections Act 2025. The decision is based on whether the evidence establishes that the registration is lawful.

Depending on the findings, the court can retain the name on the register, remove it, restore a name that was wrongly deleted or order corrections to the registration.

Can a decision be challenged?

A decision by a Revising Court is not necessarily the end of the legal process. The Elections Act 2025 provides a right of appeal in certain circumstances, allowing a party who is dissatisfied with a decision to take the matter to a higher court.

However, not every disagreement with a magistrate’s decision automatically qualifies for an appeal. The law sets out specific grounds, including certain questions of law and material facts that could affect the outcome of the case, as well as procedures and time limits that must be followed.

This means that while the Revising Court is the main forum for resolving voter-registration disputes, some decisions can still be subjected to further judicial scrutiny before the electoral register is finalised.

How long does the process take?

The Elections Act provides a 60-day period for the Revising Court process.

Section 27 states that the magistrate must decide the appeals and objections within 60 days from the date the notices of the appeals and objections are lodged with the court.

The IEC has also said the hearings are expected to be completed within 60 days of their commencement. The timeframe matters because the electoral register must be finalised as preparations for the December 5 presidential election advance.

What happens to the register afterwards?

Once the objections and any applicable appeals have been dealt with, the IEC can finalise the supplementary register. The commission has said the 2026 supplementary register will be added to the existing 2021 voters’ register. The final register will form the basis of the electorate for the presidential election.

That gives the Revising Courts significance beyond the individual cases before them. A voter who is wrongly excluded could lose the opportunity to vote, while an ineligible registration that remains on the register could raise questions about the accuracy and credibility of the electoral roll.

The courts are therefore part of a process intended to strike a balance between protecting the right of eligible citizens to vote and preventing unlawful registrations from remaining on the register.

Why does this matter for December 5?

The magistrates will not decide who becomes The Gambia’s next president. Their decisions will instead help determine who is legally entitled to appear on the voters’ register, one of the foundations on which the election itself rests.

With 1,694 registrations challenged, the Revising Courts have become an important stage between supplementary registration and the final electoral roll. Their decisions will help shape the register that Gambians ultimately use when they go to the polls on December 5, 2026