Sheki Bangura v Attorney-General & Minister of Justice (SC 13 of 1996) [2003] SLSC 3 (13 November 2003)

. | z ME COURT LEONE SCC 13/96 Sheki Bangura + Plaintift ‘And The Attomey- General and Minister of Justice - Defendant

Coram

Hon. Mr. Justice DEFLuke - CJ Hon. Mrs. Justice V.AD.Wright J.S.C. Hon. Mr. Justice HM.Joko Smart J.S.C. Hon. Mr. Justice MO.Adophy —J.S.C. Hon. Mr. Justice S.C.E.Wame J.C ALOMetzger for the Plaintiff And LMFarmah for the Defendant A JUDGMENT DELIVERED THE | 3 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2003 JOKO SMART, J.S.C: I have had the advantage of reading the draft | judgment of Wame J.S.C and I agree with his conclusion. However, bearing in | mind the nature of the case and a difference of approach, I deem it fit to put ina I few comments of my own. | ‘The Plaintiff was elected a Member of Parliament for the Peoples Democratic Party ina Parliamentary General Election held in February 1996. He was sworn in as a Member of Parliament on 2 April 1996. On 8 April 1996, he was nominated by his Excellency the President for appointment as a Minister of Development and Economic Planning. Section 56(2\¢c) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone 1991( the Constitution) requires the nomination to be approved by Parliament. At a preliminary meeting of the Parliamentary Committee responsible for the interview of Ministerial nominees, it was decided, among other things, that the Plaintiff should furnish to the Committee at its substantive meeting on 10 April r 1996, a letter of his resignation from Parliament. He was informed of this decision by the Clerk of Parliament. Accordingly, the Plaintiff wrote the letter of resignation as follows:- “The Hon. Speaker of Parliament 10 April 96 :

je 34 * Parliament Building Tower Hill Freetown. Dear Mr. Speaker,

“ Following the announcement of my nomination by His Excellency the President as “Minister of Planning & Economic Development and in compliance with the Provisions of the Constitution, I hereby tender ‘my resignation from Parliament as a Member of Parliament with immediate effect.

With sentiments of highest esteem. ‘Yours faithfully, Hon. S.G. Bangura ” The Committee interviewed the Plaintiff on 11 April 1996 and did not recommend his approval to the full Parliament. Consequently, Parliament did nod ‘not approve his nomination as required by section 56(2) ¢) of the Constitution, On 11 November 1996, the Plaintiff filed an originating Notice of Motion seeking the following reliefs pursuant to section 124(1) of the Constitution, namely:

1. For the following questions to be determined:- . (a) Whether upon the proper interpretation of section 56 of the Constitution of | Sierra Leone 1991 the resignation of a member of Parliament from that body is a condition precedent to the consideration of his nomination for. ‘appointment as a ‘Minister pursuant to the said section 56. (>) __ Whether the Plaintift” Applicant is required under the provisions of section 56 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone 1991 or ‘any other law to resign from his seat in Parliament before his nomination for appointment as a minister could be considered for approval by Parliament

2. The Plaintiff further seeks the following declarations:

z (a) That upon the proper interpretation of section 56 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone 1991, the resignation of a member of Parliament from that body is not a condition precedent to the consideration of his nomination for appointment as a Minister pursuant to the said section 56,

a6 od * (b)That upon the proper interpretation of section 56 of the Constitution of Sierra A Leone 1991 the Plaintiff was not obliged to resign his seat in Parliament before his nomination for appointment as Minister of Development and Economie Planning could have been considered for approval by Parliament. The real questions for determination in this application are (1) whether - “nomination” and “appointment” as used in section 56 of the Constitution have the same or different meanings. (2) whether a member of Parliament's resignation of his Parliamentary seat is a condition precedent to the consideration of the Member's approval by Parliament.

(3) What is the stage at which a Member of Parliament who is considered for a Ministerial position should resign his/her seat in compliance withthe Constitution

(4) What is the effect of the Plaintiff's resignation on 10 April 1996, To answer these issues itis necessary to look at the relevant provisions of the Constitution. Section 56(1) reads: “There shall be in addition to the office of Vice-President such other offices of Ministers and deputy Ministers as may be established by the President Provided that no Member of Parliament shall be appointed a Minister or Deputy Minister.” Section 56(2\¢ ) states: “A person shall not be appointed a Minister or Deputy Minister unless — his ‘nomination is approved by Parliament.” Section 77(1)\j) provides:- “A Member of Parliament shall vacate his seat in Parliament —if he resigns from office as a Member of Parliament by writing under his hand addressed to the Speaker, or ifthe office of Speaker is vacant or the Speaker is absent from Sierra Leone, to the Deputy Speaker.” Section 94(2) stipulates:- “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary inthis Constitution or in any other Jaw contained, no decision, order or direction of Parliament or any of its > Committees or the speaker relating to the rules of procedure of Parliament, or to the application or interpretation of such rules, or any act done by Parliament or by the Speaker under any rules of procedure, shall be inquired into by any court.”

Z Let me first dispose of the proviso of section 56(1). It can have only one interpretation which is that a Member of Parliament must resign his seat before he can be appointed as a Minister or Deputy Minister. What the proviso ‘contemplates is that a member of Parliament cannot retain his seat and accept an appointment as Minister or Deputy Minister but not a taking away of the right to serve his country in the Executive arm of government. Prior to the 1991 Constitution, Ministers and Deputy Ministers were appointed from Members of

- Parliament and they served in the dual capacity as members of the Executive and the Legislature. To ensure that there is complete separation of powers, the 1991 Constitution now requires a Member of Parliament to vacate his seat before he ‘can be appointed to the Executive arm of Government.

Question

1. Mr. Metzger argues strenuously that “nomination” and “appointment” as used in section 56 must be given the ordinary and popular meanings; accordingly the two ‘words cannot be synonymous and are different. He refers to dictionary meanings of the terms. Ihave carefully looked at some of these dictionary meanings and ‘have not found them helpful in resolving the difference as they seem to show that the two words are synonymous. Webster's Dictionary defines nomination as “an ‘act of appointing to an office” .The American College Dictionary says that nomination is “an act of appointing”. The Readers Digest Universal Dictionary defines the verb “ nominate” as “designate or appoint to an office”. In my ‘considered view, nomination for a position is only a proposal for that position ‘whereas an appointment to it is an offer of the position to the nominee and an ‘acceptance of it by him with or without other formalities as the case may be. In this respect, the two words are different. Having said this, I agree with Counsel for the Plaintiff that nomination and appointment must be given their ordinary and popular meaning but with the | proviso that the meaning is clear and precise. This is a well known canon of onstruction of statutes. But as is pointed out by Sowa C.J. in the Ghanaian case of Tuffor v.A.G[1980] GLR. 637 at 647-648, “A written Constitution such as ours is not an ordinary Act of Parliament. ‘The Constitution has its letter of law. Equally, the Constitution has its spirit. Its language, therefore, must be considered as if it were a living organism ‘capable of growth and development. A broad and liberal spirit is required for its interpretation. It does not admit of a narrow interpretation. A doctrinaire approach would not do. We must take account of its principles and bring 2 ‘that consideration to bear, in bringing it into conformity with the needs of the time.” Indeed, it was the spirit and intendment of the 1991 Constitution to break away from the past and make the appointment of Ministers and Deputy Ministers a

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