By Francis H. Murray
The legal battle in favor and against the validity of the 2018 presidential election that brought President Julius Maada Bio to power has continued before the Supreme Court in Freetown before Chief Justice Desmond Babatunde Edwards and four other Judges.
Continuing his argument against the petitioners on Monday, Lawyer George Banda-Thomas who represents the president and the SLPP party, being the 3rd and 4th respondents in the matter said that the petitioners did not disclose their course of action as provided for by law.
He told the court that every originating process invariably sets forth a statement of the nature of the claim and the relief or remedy sought, adding that a petition under Order 9 of the High Court Rules normally includes a concise note of the relief or remedy sought.
He said that the characteristic feature of an originating process is that it invariably contains a precise note of the nature of the claim made and or the relief that is being sought, which he said the petitions lacked.
Lawyer Banda-Thomas submitted that the petitions did not contain as a purported originating process a statement of the nature of the claim the petitioners are making nor does it contain a precise statement of the relief or remedy sought, but rather only contains vague and unsubstantiated allegations that have nothing to do with the considerations before the court.
He said some documents cited by the petitioners have not been annexed and therefore do not form part of the court records, stressing that they were meant not only to show the nature of the claim but to substantiate the allegations made therein for which he urged the court to discountenance the said petitions.
Citing Dr. Sylvia Blyden’s petition and her 7th relief sought, he argued that the reliefs prayed for in the petition are not ones the court can grant. He stated that a relief should be one the court can properly grant, citing that the Supreme Court has not been given a blank cheque to grant all sorts of reliefs but is rather guided by the constitution.
He added that both petitions lack a supporting affidavit that lays out the facts and gives the particulars but instead are filed to further compound the problems by verifying what is said in the petitions.
Citing non-compliance with the election Act of 2007 and the Supreme Court rules of 1982 in light of their mandatory nature, he submitted that the petitioners did not file and serve the 3rd and 4th respondents within 5 days of presentation of the petition as provided for by law.
He further argued that by not leaving a notice at the registry giving the name of the legal practitioner who is authorized to act as an agent, the petitioners failed to comply with mandatory provision of rule 6 (1) and therefore asked the court to strike out both petitions on that grounds.
He asserted that the law makes provisions for two distinct and separate securities to be given as part of the originating process and the depositing of Le1million with recognizances entered into by two sureties or by deposit of money in lieu of the recognizance.
Lawyer Banda-Thomas argued that Dr. Blyden’s petition only complied with the payment of the Le1million but neither secured the recognizance of two sureties nor did she pay in lieu of the recognizance.
The matter was adjourned to Wednesday 11th February 2021.
Copyright © 2021 Politico Online
