Sam-Sumana
By Allieu Sahid Tunkara
As it failed to start trial on the constitutional crisis matter presently before it on Tuesday, Sierra Leone’s Supreme Court is expected to start hearing for determination of substantive issues raised by plaintiff lawyers on Friday, May 15.
The court could not sit on the matter on the last adjourned date because the country’s sacked Vice President and plaintiff, Alhaji Samuel Sam Sumana could not make it to court. Lawyers from both the plaintiff and defendant sides were present. The public, as well as, members of the press, were in full attendance. However, none of the five Supreme Court judges were present and this prompted the matter to be adjourned again to Friday.
No official statement regarding the sudden adjournment was made in court, but according to unofficial sources, Sam Sumana had said he was attending the funeral of Kaindeh Bangura, a former All Peoples Congress (APC) party member who died on Saturday, May 9. It is believed that Sam Sumana and Bangura were close allies and the two were expelled from the ruling party on the same day in early March following internal investigations about alleged misconducts. The National Advisory Council of the APC had then found them guilty of “anti-party activities”, hence their expulsion.
Their expulsion had been followed by Sam Sumana’s sacking by President Ernest Bai Koroma as Vice President, for which the former had filed a case with the country’s highest court, challenging the president’s action.
Tuesday was supposed to mark the commencement of trial proper. It has been a week since the judges’ refusal to admit an application by Sam Sumana’s lawyers to slam an interlocutory injunction, restraining the appointed Vice President, Victor Bockarie Foh, from further occupying the office of the Vice President until the matter ended in court.
Acting Chief Justice, Valecious Thomas, had banked their refusal to the application on the fact that a vacancy in the office of the Vice President was bound to do more harm than good to the state. He said the VP performed constitutional functions which could not be performed by a minister, adding that the public’s interest should be given considerable weight.
But lead plaintiff lawyer, James Blyden Jenkins-Johnston, told Politico that he was in disagreement with the Supreme Court’s ruling because his team believed an injunction ought to have been granted. He said he believed the court had not come to a right conclusion. “But that can only be my opinion,” he added.
“I still have faith in the court; otherwise we wouldn’t have filed our case in the first place. We cannot afford to say we don’t trust the court,” he told Politico in an interview, following the injunction ruling.
© Politico 14/05/15
