By Mohamed Foday Conteh
Ibrahim Mansaray, lawyer representing former President Dr. Ernest Bai Koroma, has told Justice Adrian Fisher at the High Court in Freetown that the application filed by Dr. Sylvia Olayinka Blyden was ‘scandalous’ to his client.
Mansaray was making an objection yesterday 19th October to a motion with affidavit filed by Dr. Blyden on the 13th October 2021. Dr. Blyden applied to be a litigant in person in the ongoing matter between Alfred Peter Conteh as plaintiff and Dr. Ernest Bai Koroma, Alhaji Osman Foday Yansaneh, All People’s Congress (APC) and Political Parties Registration Commission (PPRC) as defendants.
Mansaray made two objections against the said application, first that the pages of the affidavit were not numbered as required by the High Court Rules, thus rendering it defective.
Mansaray also raised another objection to the affidavit by Dr. Blyden in view of his client who had served as a leader of the nation and held other higher position in the society. The lawyer cited paragraphs 3, 11, 47 and a host of others to be injurious to his client’s reputation.
The said paragraph 47, according to Mansaray, described former President Koroma to be a dictatorial leader. He said Dr. Blyden hinged that description of former president Koroma on a certain Supreme Court judgment which he said she is not au- fait with.
Mansaray also referenced paragraph 16 which he said that Dr. Blyden alluded that the first defendant is being investigated by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) for money laundering activities in the Middle-East, Asia and other parts of the World. The lawyer said that the matter in court is that of a civil and not a criminal matter. He added that the first defendant is in court as Chairman and Leader of the APC and not as an individual.
Mansaray asked that the referred paragraphs be struck off because it intends to deride the first defendant who has been a leader of the nation and Member of Parliament. He said that the time of the court would be saved if the said paragraphs were removed.
Africanus Sorie Sesay, counsel for the Second defendant, Yansaneh, also objected to the said affidavit. He said that the mere face of the affidavit signifies that the applicant changed the totality of the action in existence. He referred to the title made by Dr. Blyden and the originating one. He said that Order 18 Rule 6 frowns at the said affidavit and that the matters in the affidavit are fresh and do not relate to the matter in court. He said that they are ‘extraneous.’ He said for Dr. Blyden to be an added party in the matter is that of a jurisdictional issue. He submitted that the motion paper of Dr. Blyden be removed pursuant to Order 21 Rule 17 (1) (d).
Ady Macauley, counsel for the third defendant, also raised an object to the said affidavit. He said he has objections because the first plaintiff has not put their notice in motion in the appropriate manner and referenced Order 1 Rule 2 of the High Court Rules of 2007. He said that the affidavit was placed in a book manner and drew reference to the back of the motion saying they were not signed which contravenes Order 8 Rule 4(1) and Order 1 Rule 2.
He also objected to the affidavit because he said that the application in itself was not hinged under the appropriate High Court Rule. He said she failed to attach the existing originating motion. “It is not our responsibility to think for her,” he said. He stated Dr. Blyden indicated that there is an action but that she failed to specify the action. He said that the consent of the original plaintiff was required and it was unnecessary for her to have joined the matter. He also adopted the former objections.
Jesse Jengo, counsel for Alfred Peter Conteh, plaintiff in the matter, said that he needs to be sure as to whether he would support Dr. Blyden’s affidavit or not.
On that note, Justice Fisher adjourned the matter for this morning 20th October.
The judge also noted that the second defendant, Yansaneh was absent in court in contravention to the order made.
The judge also ordered that the second defendant Yansaneh be present in court and that counsel for Yansaneh pay four million Leones for his client. Justice Fischer also ordered counsel for the plaintiff to make the payment before 4 pm today. He said that the fine was a show of dissatisfaction over Yansaneh’s absence in court.
Copyright © Politico Online 20/10/21
