By Saio Marrah
Lawyer Drucil Taylor, representing Octea Mining Company has argued at the appeal court in Freetown that the Marginalized Affected Property Owners (MAPOA) of Tankoro and Gbense Chiefdoms in Kono district consented and agreed to the adverse effects of the mining activity in their communities.
Taylor forwarded this argument at the appeal court on the 11th July 2024 in Freetown.
He said that the property owners agreement was the reason they signed up to the Community Development Agreement, and that because they agreed to the adverse effects that are bound to happen from the activities of the mining company, was the reason the company decided to relocate them elsewhere.
He further argued that the property owners, who are the appellants before the appeal court were not supposed to have brought a lawsuit against the mining company because of the Aggrieved Resolution Mechanism, which was set up to settle any issue that may arise between the mining company and the community people, which he claimed they failed to utilize.
He also pointed out that the appellants also failed to involve the Paramount Chiefs, who are the chief administrators of the agreement and of the chiefdom where the mining company is operating before filing a case to the court.
Responding to a question from Justice Reginald Fynn, Chairman of the three panel of judges, on whether the community people who are party to the agreement do not have the right to bring a lawsuit against the mining company even if the Chiefs misused the land, Taylor argued that there was no evidence to indicate that the chiefs misused the land.
According to him, the Marginalized Affected Property Owners (MAPO), a group representing the appellants was not in existence and that it only emerged during the course of the lawsuit. He said the Affected Property Owners Association (APOA) was the group that signed up to the agreement between the community people and the company.
He was responding to claims raised by the lead appellants’ lawyer, Chernnor M.B. Jalloh, who had argued that the High Court dismissed their case without looking into the merit of the case on the grounds that the appellants have no right to enforce mining laws, environmental protection agency law and the Community Development Agreement.
The case resumes on 3rd October, 2024.
Copyright © 2024 Politico (17/07/24)
