By Politico staff writer
Appeal Court Judge, Justice Komba Kamanda has removed the injunctive reliefs granted by Justice Samuel O. M Taylor against conducting the Paramount Chieftaincy Election of Neya Chiefdom, Falaba District in the Northern Province of the Country.
He ordered that the election should go ahead within thirty days.
He stated that the injunctive reliefs granted in the instant matter is a nonstarter. “In my considered opinion, the Petitioner/Respondent herein does not have legs to stand on by way of opposing the notice of motion dated the 14th day of July 2014. In the circumstance, I order that the injunctive reliefs granted by Hon. Justice S.O.M Taylor -JA dated the 22nd day of March 2021 is hereby vacated,” Justice Kamanda ruled.
The ruling was in the wake of a Notice of Motion dated the 14th day of July 2021, filed by the Director of Local Government; the 1st Respondent/Applicant and the District Electoral Officer, the 4th Respondent Applicant, asking the court to grant them leave to short serve the application herein notwithstanding that two clear days’ notice has not been given to the petitioner.
The action was originally brought to the High Court by Alie Tamba Marah (Petitioner/Respondent) against the Director of Local Government, the National Electoral Commission, the Chairman, National Electoral Commission, the District Electoral Officer, the Provincial Secretary, North Region -5th Respondent, Sheku Terena Marah, 6th Respondent, and Kalie Gbondo Marah – 7th Respondent which saw an injunction slammed on conducting the Paramount Chieftaincy election of Neya chiefdom.
After the said injunction was granted, Counsel for the 1st and 4th Respondents/Applicants, Edward Sarkoh, pleaded that the court grants an interim stay of execution of the injunction order of Justice S.O.M. Taylor pending the hearing and determination of the application.
He also sought for the injunction order of Justice S.O.M Taylor dated 22nd March 2021 to be set aside for noncompliance with Section 18 of the State Proceedings Act (Act No. 14 of 2000) and for the costs of the Application to be borne by the Petitioner.
He further argued that the petition which was the substantive matter filed was also in contravention with Section 18 of the Chieftaincy Act, 2009 on the basis that a petition can only be filed after the conduct of a chieftaincy election and not prior to its conduct. Counsel finally submitted that it is wrong to approach the court by way of a petitioner for declaration of rights, instead of a judicial review.
In his reply on behalf of the Petitioner/Respondent, Lawyer S. M. Konteh opposed the application for which he relied on the affidavit of Alie Tamba Marah with an audio message of elders allegedly supporting the candidacy and legitimacy of the Petitioner/Respondent’s claim of right to the Chieftaincy.
Lawyer Konteh said the petitioner approached the court after the indefinite postponement of the second round of election, and as such they ought to have approached the court to present their case on the argument that the entire process leading to the second round was marred with irregularities.
He concluded that the State Proceedings Act also recognizes the right of the parties and for declarations to be made.
Delivering his ruling, Justice Kamanda said that he was of the view that the main issues in contention in this matter are whether filing or bringing a petition after the first round of election is permissible to prevent the holding of a Paramount Chieftaincy Election and whether injunctive reliefs can be granted in the instant case to forestall the conduct of a Paramount Chieftaincy Election.
“The said provision of the law in my view is as crystal as clear in that, a party who intends to challenge the validity of the election of a Paramount chief can do so only after the conduct of the election. Therefore, in the instant case, it is premature for the petitioner to challenge the outcome of an election that has not been conducted by way of a Petition,” Justice Kamanda said.
He said he is yet to see any provision in the Chieftaincy Act that contradicts Section 18 of the said Act. But where that is conspicuously absent, “there is nothing this court can do to prevent the invocation of Section 18 in such circumstances as in the instant case”.
"In my considered view, the purpose of Section 18 of the Act is to avoid unnecessary disruptions leading to the elections," he said.
Copyright © 2022 Politico Online (25/02/22)
