Omrie Golley And Others v S & Justice S.A Ademosu (SC MISC APP 1 of 2006) [2007] SLSC 8 (17 January 2007)

é SC. MISC. APP. 1/2006

| OMRIE GOLLEY & 2 OTHERS - APPLICANTS if + . VS THE STATE & JUSTICE S.A. ADEMOSU_ - RESPONDENTS

Coram

Hon Mr. Justice S.C.E. Warne JSC : Hon Ms. Justice U.H. Tejan-Jalloh JSC Hon Mi. Justice E.C. Thompson-Davies JSC Hon Mrs. Justice V.A.D. Wright JSC Hon Mr. Justice A.N.B. Stronge fA C.F. Margai Esq. with him R. Kowa Esq. for Applicants E. Roberts Esq. with him O. Kanu Esq. and A. Sesay Esq. :

Ruling

Delivered this 17" day of January 200F #2 WARNE JSC - This Notice of Motion has beeri before this Court for some considerable time. The important issue before this Court is for the interpretation of section 137 (2)(a) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone, Act No. 6 of 1991 in so far as it relates to the Honourable Mr. Justice S.A. Ademosu , who is the wial Judge in the case of The State vs. Omrie Golley and two others t i in the High Court: Mr. C.F. Margai, Counsel for the Applicants has submitted that since the present Coram consists of Warne, Thompson-Davis, Wright JISC aud Suronge JA are affected by 0 4 (b) in the declaration sought, the interest of justice will be served by the four Justices herein before mentioned rescuing z themselves from these proceedings. 0 4 (b) states “Where a Justice of Appeal felres alter attaining the compulsory retiring age of sixty five (65) years as provided by section 137 (2) (b) of the Constitution but is retained us a Judge

7 relying on section 136 (2) of the said Constitution, was it the intention of the Leuisie.ure that the latter appointment should be indetinite”? dn une 6" April 2006, the Court ruled that the submission had no merit ~ and thet the proceedings should commence. : : i When proceedings commenced on the 2" May 2006, Mr. Margai ; informed the court that he had another Notice of Motion dated 23" April, 2006 sevhing an order that the present members of the panel save Justice Tejan-Jalloh recuse themselves from hearing the motion with regard to the interpretation of the fourth Order concerning Mr. Justice Ademosu sitting as judge nobwithstanding his retirement in 1998 eee bs tact hts cote t eke lalsalaaray . No doudt this submission affects the four justices named above The Court, even hough not seiged of this motion, adjourned the matter sine die to give the learned Chief justice an Opportunity to appoint a panel consistent with the reques: of vir, Margai. The Chicf Justice wrote a letter to Mr. Margai that he WHISS a date for the hearing when a panel can be constituted.

Be thet as it may, the present Coram decided to resume hearing. The suid ~weisuon is quite clear vis-a-vis a criminal matter before our Courts vide ecuon 25 (1) of the said Constitution Act No. 6 of 1991, which provides as

i follows: “Whenever any person is charged with a criminal offence, ue shall suiiess the cnarge is withdrawn, be afforded a fair hearing within a reasonable Une by gut independent and impartial court established by law" (himphases is ining) Pall conscious oi this provision, notices were sent out to Counsel tor the ¢ Wosads cad te applicants themselves and the Law Olfice in order oinaresce hearin sis the Court ordered on the 6" April 2000, At the hearin ot he inary, SOU7, the Court was informed that the applicants hod pee

+S me brought from Prison the Court ordered that they be brought up and they appeared in the dock. Mr. Margai observed that the letter from the Chief Justice did not refer to this matter. Whether it referred to this matter or not, the Court ~ was concerned with the compliance of the Order made on the 6" April 2006 — ‘Mr. Margai for his part maintains his position that he cannot proceed before this Court. This position cannot be maintained ad infinitum I have no alterative but to strike out the Notice of Motion and it is struck out accordingly. The above Ruling was going to be delivered on the 16" January 2007 but Mr. Margai observed that the applicants were not in court and in the interest of justice, he applied that they be brought to court. The Court granted the application. The matter was adjourned to Wednesday 17" January 2007. On the 17" January 2007 the applicants were present and the Ruling was delivered striking out the Notice of Motion. (Ch: SYDNEY WARNE JSC Kid! UMU TEJAN-JALLOH JSC sit E. THOMPSON-DAVIS sscflep -¢ ] V.A.D. WRIGHT JSC ANB.STRONGE J&-48 5