By Politico Staff Writer
The Supreme Court of Sierra Leone has ruled in favour of Chief Electoral Commissioner, Mohamed Konneh indicating that his appointment was lawful and constitutional and did not contravene any constitutional provisions.
Acting Chief Justice, Nicholas C. Browne-Marke on the 17th July, 2024, stated that “the Constitution must be read as a whole, and not in bits, cherry-picking provisions which, on their own, may appear to support one view or the other. To do so, would result in absurdity.”
The panel of Judges which included the Chief Justice, Nicholas C. Browne-Marke, Justice M. F. Deen-Tarawally, Justice Alusine S. Sesay and Justice Ansumana Ivan Sesay was unanimous in their decision to dismiss the case of the Plaintiffs against Konneh, ECSL and the Attorney General and Minister of Justice.
In an Originating Notice of Motion filed by Charles Francis Margai, representing Patrick John and the People’s Movement for Democratic Change (PMDC), the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs in the matter, he argued that the appointment of Konneh as Chief Electoral Commissioner when he was Director of Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) contravened constitutional provisions.
Margai had argued that the matter before the Court involved fundamental rights and must be heard by five Supreme Court Judges.
He also stated that the Electoral Commission of Sierra Leone (ECSL) was under strict obligation to comply with the provisions which mandate the commission to allot campaign dates for all presidential candidates, but claimed that wasn’t done for the PMDC presidential candidate. Consequently, the argument was that the refusal by the commission to give campaign date to the PMDC was a violation of the party’s rights to launch an effective campaign to win voter’s support.
Dealing with the legitimacy of the appointment of the Chief Electoral Commissioner, the presiding judge quoted sections of the Constitution which talks about who is qualified to be appointed electoral commissioner, a member of parliament or a minister.
Chief Justice Marke noted that the 1st Defendant was not a member of Parliament at the time of his appointment but was qualified to be elected, adding that if he had intended to contest for a member of parliament, he would have resigned 12 months before the date of the election.
He concluded that “but in the case of the Electoral Commissioner, there was no need for him to resign. The twelve-months resignation for appointment is only tagged to members of parliament and not for him as Director of the FIU.”
In another Application, Margai had called on then Chief Justice Edwards and Justice Ansumana Ivan Sesay to recuse themselves from the matter on the grounds that the Chief Justice Edwards had sworn in President Julius Maada Bio while Justice Sesay was not a Justice of the Supreme Court. He stressed that the bench should comprise of Supreme Court justices only because the matter before them hinged on human rights.
Responding to the recusal application, Justice Browne-Marke said the basis on which counsel for the plaintiff asked for Justice Edwards to recuse himself is in contravention of section 46 of the 1991 Constitution which says that the President shall take an oath for the execution of his office as set in the second schedule of the constitution and another subsection, stating that the Chief Justice of Sierra Leone or someone acting in that capacity shall administer the oath to the president.
He further clarified that a Section of the constitution states that the oath should be administered on the day the elected president is declared winner by the Returning Officer.
“So, the Returning Officer and the Chief Justice are the two people that have constitutional rights to carry out those functions and they are subjected to the aforementioned sections,” he said.
On Justice Ivan Sesay’s recusal, the Chief Justice noted that human rights provisions are encapsulated in Chapter 111, but specifically sections 15 to 28 of the 1991 Constitution. He added that a section of the 1991 Constitution says the Supreme Court shall consist of not less than five justices of the Supreme Court. The presiding judge concluded that the recusal application against Justice Edwards in his capacity as Chief Justice, who requested Justice Ivan Sesay to join in the Supreme Court, has no basis in law.
Copyright © 2024 Politico (22/07/24)
