By Aminata Phidelia Allie and Joseph Lamin Kamara
As the Supreme Court begins hearing the case filed by sacked Vice President Samuel Sam-Sumana, lawyers representing the plaintiff have argued that the appointed Vice President, Victor Bockarie Foh, is in office in violation of Sierra Leone’s Constitution.
The hearing which began on Thursday came weeks after the court issued a statement barring the public from discussing or expressing opinions on the issue. Prior to the warning, social media forums were overwhelmed with debates emanating from opinions by opposition politicians and some leading legal luminaries.
Up to date there is fear among the public stirred particularly by threats from the main opposition Sierra Leone People’s Party and also from some sections of the civil society to stage countywide protests over the matter.
In the case, Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Franklin Bai Kargbo, appears as first defendant and the appointed Vice President, second defendant.
According to Sam-Sumana’s legal team, headed by James Blyden Jenkins-Johnston, Mr Foh should be restrained from acting as Vice President because even he [Foh] knew he was occupying the office in contravention of the Constitution, Act No. 6 of 1991.
“Any violation of the Constitution does irreparable damage to both the Constitution itself and the citizens as a whole,” Jenkins-Johnston said as he responded to a submission by one of the defence lawyers.
About the issue of public interest in the matter, he noted that it was in the “greatest interest of the citizenry of this country that the Constitution be obeyed by everyone, including the President.” Submitting earlier, Jenkins-Johnston had argued that the main issue to be determined at the moment was whether or not there was a serious question to be tried. Only then, he said, would the court decide whether or not to slam an interlocutory injunction on Foh.
Going through various documents, referred to as ‘exhibits,’ the applicant`s lawyer said it was important for the court to note that a constitutionally elected vice president had been sacked from his office which was now being occupied by an unconstitutionally appointed VP. He said that was a serious question to be tried.
Also, Jenkins-Johnston said, the court needed to determine the meaning of the phrase “supreme executive authority” as used by President Koroma in the press release announcing the sacking of Sam-Sumana. According to the lawyer, section 51 of the Constitution made clear how a sitting vice president could be relieved of his office and duties, “but if done in any other way it is a crime.”
“Based on the evidence before the court, there can be no questions about whether or not there are serious questions to be tried. This action relates to the enforcement of and compliance with the Constitution which the Supreme Court is here to determine. We therefore urge this court to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining the current Vice President from further occupying the office.”
Objecting to the plaintiff`s submission, counsel for the first defendant, Berthan Macauley, said no injunction should be slammed on Victor Foh because that could cause an irreparable damage that could not be compensated by the plaintiff (Sam-Sumana).
Though agreeing with the plaintiff`s lawyer that there were serious questions to be determined, the defence lawyer said that that was the only threshold the former was able to meet. He also argued that granting injunction was not mandatory upon the court and that it was a discretional responsibility.
Inasmuch as the injunction, if granted, would affect Foh, Lawyer Macauley said the defence team would be concerned if permanent damages became an issue as the plaintiff never indicated in any document before the court that he would be ready to incur them should he lose.
Relying on Section 54 (1) of the Constitution, Macauley said the constitution did not contemplate the vacancy of the Office of the Vice President and therefore the court should take that into consideration when assessing balance of convenience.
The balance of convenience, he indicated, was while Victor Foh was serving as VP, he was serving in the interest of the public. Restraining him as such, therefore, would mean disregarding that interest of the public.
“He [Sam-Sumana] is presently not serving as vice president. The implication of his application before this court therefore is that nobody else should be there besides him. The balance of convenience is clearly in favour of the defendant, therefore the application of the plaintiff should be dismissed,” the defence lawyer argued.
Like many previous Supreme Court cases, Thursday’s hearing took place at the High Court No.1. The courtroom was crowded mostly by journalists and lawyers who seemed inclined to use the high profile case as a learning point.
To most attendees the court’s public address system was poor as the plaintiff and defence teams hardly attempted using the microphones that appeared mostly dysfunctional.
However, despite reports indicated that police restricted members of the public from entering the court building, there was no clear intimidating police presence in the courtroom as many had expected, considering what obtained in some previous high profile cases.
Although to members of the public this case has been one of a serious constitutional crisis, the atmosphere in the courtroom painted a less tense mood, as even some of the five presiding judges could be seen smiling at one point or another, notably when Berthan Macauley referred to Victor Foh as “second Vice President.” That even prompted laughter in the entire courtroom.
Ruling on the injunction application was not delivered. But it is expected in the next hearing, the date for which, according to the presiding judge, Acting Chief Justice Valesious Thomas, would be communicated.
© Politico 10/04/15
