By Francis H. Murray
Legal arguments for and against the extension of the recent High Court injunction slammed on all political activities within the main opposition All Peoples Congress (APC) Party have taken place before Justice Adrian J. Fisher in Freetown.
Representing the plaintiff applicant Alfred Peter Conteh on Friday 5th March 2021, Lawyer Jesse M. Jengo pleaded with the court to extend the interim injunction following the expiration of the 7- day period provided for by law.
On behalf of the 3rd defendant, the APC party, lawyer Ady Macauley argued that the 1st order was jurisdictional and that the parent application was faulty and plagued with “irredeemable and fatal irregularities just as the ex-parte notice of motion itself.”
Referring to the injunction as far-reaching, he noted that what it meant was that the APC party could not even carry out the legitimate functions of a political party amid ongoing by-elections in some parts of the country.
He said that at the time of his argument, personnel of the Sierra Leone police had stopped the APC from rallying as part of ongoing preparations for a by-election in Kambia district and therefore asked for an order from the court directed at the Inspector General of Police explaining the limits of the injunction.
He went on to submit that the timetable for the 2023 general elections is on course and that halting them now would only enhance the prospects of other parties winning the elections.
Referring to the ex-parte interim injunction as something done in “bad faith” lawyer Macauley argued that the parent application lacked a “full and frank” disclosure of all relevant details to legitimize it, adding that every hour, minute or seconds spent under such circumstances in the political calendar or timetable of the party would do them more harm than good.
Representing the 1st defendant Dr. Ernest Bai Koroma, lawyer Ibrahim Mansaray also objected to the application for the extension of the interim injunction which he said “ought not to have been granted in the first place.”
He argued that the plaintiff applicant did not show any urgency that existed or still exists on grounds of which the injunction can be sought adding that what the applicant was asking the court to do was “to give life to an order that shouldn’t have even existed.”
He said the applicant has failed to show that he’s willing and able to pay damages if ordered by the court.
In his submission for the 2nd defendant Osman Foday Yansaneh, lawyer Africanus Sesay argued that the applicant did not have the “locus” to come before the court and that he failed to show or indicate his interest in the planned activities of the party in light of the wrong done to him.
Citing the supplementary affidavit of the plaintiff applicant, he said at the time the application was being granted, the supplementary affidavit was not before the court and therefore has no bearing on the orders given. He said the application for an extension of the injunction must fail.
In his reply to the objections, Lawyer Jengo told the court that the defendants didn’t file any affidavit in opposition to his ex-parte notice of motion in light of the fact that the orders of the court had far-reaching effects on the 3rd defendant which he referred to as a reputable institution.
He argued that his client has the “locus” to come before the court as a registered and paid up member of the party who felt aggrieved and therefore considers it a matter of urgency for the court to intervene because “the party’s democratic principles were at stake.”
Lawyer Jengo said his client believes that if not for the interim injunction, the party’s convention would have been held in the absence of democratic principles, adding that even if the party chose to elect its officials, his client was concerned that the same “illegitimate’ executive would have to preside over such a process.
Withdrawing the file for a ruling in respect of both the jurisdictional objection and the determination of whether to extend the injunction or not, Justice Fisher cautioned that the police should not restrain the APC form taking part in any national electoral process as long as it wasn’t an interparty activity.
The ruling on the matter has been reserved for Wednesday 10th March 2021.
Copyright © 2021 Politico Online
