Ngandi T.A .Sokoyama & Attorney-General & Miniter of Justice (SC 1 of 2005) [2005] SLSC 11 (15 August 2005)

SC.No. 1/2005 IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE SECTIONS 124, 171(5) g ‘AND IN THE MATTER OF PROVINCES ACT CAP. 60 OF THE LAWS OF SIERRA LEONE AS AMENDED BY THE PROVINCES AMMENDMENTS ACTS No.4 AND 49 OF 1961 BETWEEN: NGANDI T.A. SOKOYAMA & THREE OTHERS - PLAINTIFFS AND ‘THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE -. DEFENDANT A.F.Serry-kamal Esq. for Plaitniffs | __bM. Farmah Esq. with E.E.Roberts Esq., and

0. Kanu Esq, for Defendants.

Judgment

WARNE J.S.C.: This is a claim by way of Originating Notice of Motion seeking the following reliefs:

(1) An Order that Section 5(4) of the Provinces Act Cap 60 of the Laws of Sierra Leone is inconsistent with Section 133(1) of Sierra Leone Constitution ‘Act No. 6 of 1991 and therefore null and void.

(2) That the letter dated 7” June 2005 from the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice refusing the Plaintiffs right to sue in the High Court to question the validity of the election of the Paramount Chief of Sandor Chiefdom is ultra vires the Constitution of Sierra Leone and therefore null * and void.

oe

; Se Ae. 5s @) That in the light of the State Proceedings Act 2000 the provision in Section 5(4) of the Provinces Act 1960 Cap 60 of the Laws of Sierra Y Leone as amended is ultra vires the Constitution of Sierra Leone and therefore null and void.

Background

There was an election at the Sandor Chiefdom in the Kono District in the Eastern Province of the Republic of Sierra Leone. This election was to fil the vacancy created | by the death of Paramount Chief Nyghaquee Fasuluku Sonsiama. Several

Candidates vied for vacancy. Only one candidate was declared eligible to contest the election. He was duly elected, The Plaintiffs in this case were the other candidates. They were disqualified from contesting the election as being ineligible. Being disqualified, and the election having being held, and the sole candidate declared the winner, they sought the consent of the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice to commence proceedings in the High Court to challenge the validity of the said election. The Attorney-General refused to give his consent. The Plaintiffs have therefore invoked the jurisdiction of this court pursuant to Sections 124,171 (5) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone Act No. 6 of 1991 (hereinafter called the Constitution) and the Provinces Act Cap 60 of the Laws of Sierra Leone ‘as amended by the Provinces Amendment Act No.4 of 1991 (hereinafter called the Provinces Amendment Act.) Mr. Serry-Kamal Counsel for the Plaintiffs filed an affidavit sworn to by Tamba M. Mondeh Tengbessa one of the Plaintiffs on the 14" day of June 2005. This affidavit is in support of the Originating Notice of Motion. During the hearing, Counsel filed

2 another affidavit sworn to again by Tamba M. Mondeh Tengbassa on his and on behalf of the other Plaintiffs herein on the 17" day of May 2006.

ce

|e

Mr. Serry-Kamal, in support of the various documents filed made the following

Submissions

that the grounds on which the Plaintiffs rely are those in Exhibits TMMT4 ‘and TMMTS. He referred to the provisions in the Provinces Amendment Act No.4 and

No.49 of 1961. That Sections (1)(2),4(2) and 7(1) of the State Proceedings Act No.14 of 2000 are inconsistent with the provisions of Section 133(1) of the Constitution. That the case for the Plaintiffs is that set out in their cases dated 21* June 2005, That the only requirement that must be fulfilled to seek any of the reliefs as set out in Section 5(4) of the Provisions Act Cap.60 as amended are contained in Section

6. The application must be in writing addressed to the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Internal Affairs and made within 30 days of the irregularity complained of, he added. ‘Counsel went on to address the Court on the series of events prior to the refusal contained in Exhibit TMMTS which are Election was held on the 13 May 2005, zoplication the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice made on the 19" May 2005 ‘and copies addressed to the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Local Government and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Counsel submits that the refusal of the Attorney-General is contrary to Section 133(1) and Section 171(15) of the Constitution. That having provided the requirements, Section 5(4) of the Provinces ‘Act Cap.60 as amended is ultra vires the Constitution and consequently any Law which is inconsistent with the Constitution is null and void. ‘That Section 5 Subsections (4) to (7) are inconsistent with Section 133(1) of the Constitution and as such, null and void:

} ‘That Section 133(1) of the Constitution gives unlimited access to the Court and refers

@ also to Section 171(15) of the Constitution. In support thereof Counsel refers to the

State Proceedings Act No.14 of 2000 and more particularly to Section al

Se eae

2 and the case of A.P.C. vs. Nasmos SC No.4 of 1966 of 29" October 1999 (unreported).

: “That the Petition of Rights Act No.23 of the Laws of Sierra Leone is ultra vires the Constitution as a result of the foregoing submissions. ‘That the dicta of Wright JSC. In the Nasmos case states that Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Petition of Rights Act Cap 23 are inconsistent with the Constitution, That the scheme in the Provinces Amendment Act is similar to the provisions in Sections 2,3,4 and 5 of Act No.23 of the Laws of Sierra Leone. In section 4 of Act No.23, there is the requirement of the Attorney- General's Fiat with this difference, that by the provision in Section 5(7), the jurisdiction of the court is ousted. In fact, Counsel has urged on the Court that Sections 5(3) 4(5) and (7) of Act No. 23 appear to oust the jurisdiction of the Court and this is in contravention of Section 171(15) of the Constitution. Counsel submits that he is challenging the validity of the election and this is a claim against the Government and a claim means a right to sue. The above submissions were made in support of ground (1) of the claim. Counsel submits that he was adopting his submissions on ground (1)

forthe reliefs sought on grounds (2) and (3).

In order to buttress his case further, Counsel submits that if his submission, on ground (1) are not tenable, then exhibit TMMTS dated 7" June 2005 is inconsistent with Section 133(1) of the Constitution, He submits that the refusal contained in the letter is a violation of section 133(1) of the Constitution. Ina further argument on ground

(3) Counsel submits that in the light of the

z provisions of Sections 5(4) (6) and (7) of the Provinces Act as amended, the refusal

* of the Attorney-General to grant his consent is ultra vires the Constitution. Finally

The pages read for this report end here. The judgment continues in the PDF.