By Francis H. Murray
Lawyer Lansana Dumbuya representing the defeated 2018 APC presidential candidate Dr. Samura Kamara and two other party officials, Alhaji Minkailu Mansaray and Dr. Osman Foday Yansaneh, being the 2nd 3rdand 4th petitioners of the 2018 presidential elections has told the Supreme Court that his clients had as part of their petition a “Statement of Case” citing the reliefs sought.
Making his submission on Friday before the Chief Justice Desmond Babatunde Edwards and four other Justices, he said his clients complied with Order 9 of the High Court Rules by stating a prescribed statement of the nature of the relief or remedy sought which he said was contrary to the assertion of the respondents.
He said that even if the court rules that the form relative to election petition in the Supreme Court should not comply with Rule 3 (1) of the Election Petition Rules of 2007, the election petition can be classed as an originating notice of motion.
He argued that because of the different rules that apply to election petitions which include the Public Elections Act and the Constitution, a cooperative approach should instead be used in construing the issues before the court.
Lawyer Dumbuya further stated that where the fundamental rights of an individual especially those that are guaranteed by the constitution were in question, the court should give a construction that guarantees those rights especially the ones touching on the right to choose a representative.
He went on to state that justice must not be sacrificed on the altar of strict compliance with rules or else it may be far-fetched.
He said where the provisions of a statute are mandatory, they must be complied with as compliance is absolute and not qualified, adding that even if that was the case they complied with the relevant rules.
He argued that it was the duty of the Supreme Court registrar to serve any election petition, presidential or otherwise on the respondents and that does not put the petitioner under obligation with regards to service.
Lawyer Dumbuya added that notwithstanding the fact that they filed a motion dated 13th April 2018 for a substitution of service with the 1st and 2nd respondents accepting service in an open court on the 17th April 2018, there was no evidence to suggest that the respondents complied with Rule 7 (1) of the Election Petition Rules.
Citing depositing money in lieu of recognisance, he argued that compliance with Rule 14 (1&2) cannot be mandatory. He said if the court were to assume for once that there was non-compliance in an election petition where witnesses are unlikely to be called except in special circumstances, the compliance with Rule 14 of the Election Petition Rules which in one breath is for the charges costs and expenses, such issue must be looked into cautiously. The lawyer argued that in all of the rules where service was required, the onus was not put on the petitioner but the Supreme Court Registrar.
The case continues today.
Copyright © 2021 Politico Online
