Steele & Ors v Attorney-General; Tejan-Sie v Koroma (CIVIL CASE 125 of 1966) [1967] SLSC 1210 (3 January 1967)

STEELE v. ATT.-GEN., 1967-68 ALR S.L. S.C. sTEELE and OTHERS v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, TEJAN-SIE and KOROMA SuPREME CouRT (Cole, Ag. C.J.): January 3rd, 1967 (Civil Case No. 125/66)

[1] Constitutional Law-fundamental rights-enforcement-application for redress-applicant must allege facts showing direct injury actually sustained or immediately threatened: A person invoking the enforce ment provisions laid down in s.24 of the Constitution must allege facts which show that, as a result of the acts complained of, he has sustained, or is sustaining, or is immediately in danger of sustaining, a direct injury, and it is insufficient to allege facts which merely show a likelihood that he will suffer in some indefinite way (page 13, lines 30-36; page 14, lines 8-13).

[2] Constitutional Law-fundamental rights-enforcement-application for redress-applicant must allege facts showing special injury not common to public: A person invoking the enforcement provisions laid down in s.24 of the Constitution must allege facts which show, as a result of the acts complained of, an injury to himself which is not one of a general nature common to all members of the public, and it is insufficient to allege facts which merely show that he will suffer in common with other people (page 13, lines 30-36; page 14, lines

[3] Constitutional Law - party system - parliamentary resolution that Government consider introducing one-party system constitutional: A resolution of Parliament that the Government give serious considera tion to the introduction of a one-party system of government does not contravene Part 2 of Chapter IV of the Constitution (page 11, lines 7-9). The defendants-applicants applied to strike out the plaintiffs respondents' statement of claim and in the alternative for the points of law raised in the defence to be heard and disposed of before the trial. By their writ of summons, the plaintiffs-respondents claimed, "pursuant to s.24 of the Constitution," (a), a declaration that the Government's appointment of a committee to report on a one-party system for Sierra Leone was a threat to and an infringement of ss. 12 to 23 of the Constitution and was specifically in breach of s.22, and was therefore void, and (b), an order restraining the committee from meeting or proceeding and the second defendant from acting as its chairman. In their statement of claim, they quoted the committee's terms of reference, viz.-"To collate and assess all views on the One

1 S.L.-1

Party System both in and out of Parliament and to make recom mendations on the type of One Party System suitable for Sierra Leone and the method by which it should be introduced." They alleged that the committee, by reason of its restrictive terms of 5 reference, constituted a distinct and certain threat to the rights entrenched by s.22 of the Constitution (which protects the freedoms of assembly and association) and that their entrenched rights were likely to be contravened in relation to them, the plaintiffs-respondents. By their defence, the defendants-applicants denied these allega- 10 tions while admitting that the committee had been set up with the terms of reference stated. They raised the objections in law (a), that the appointment of the committee and the fixing of its terms of reference were an exercise of the incidental power of the Government to inform itself of public opinion before introducing a bill in Parlia- 15 ment, and (b), that the statement of claim was bad in law and disclosed no cause of action because the invocation of the jurisdiction of the court under s.24 of the Constitution was wrong. In support of the latter objection, they contended that the plaintiffs-respondents had alleged no facts showing that as a result of the setting-up of 20 the committee any of the provisions of ss. 12 to 23 of the Constitution had been, was being or was likely to be contravened in relation to them, the plaintiffs-respondents. Further, they alleged that the committee had been set up following a resolution of Parliament calling on the Government to give serious consideration to the 25 introduction of a one-party system of government. The plaintiffs respondents filed no reply and this allegation was not disputed.

Cases referred to :

(1) Att.-Gen. for Australia v. Colonial Sugar Refining Co., Ltd., [1914] A.C. 237; (1913), 110 L.T. 707.

(2) Balewa v. Doherty, [1963] 1 W.L.R. 949; (1963), 107 Sol. Jo. 615.

(3) Ex p. Levitt, 302 U.S. 633; 58 S.Ct. 1 (1937), applied.

(4) Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447; 43 S.Ct. 597 (1923), applied.

(5) Olivier v. Buttigieg, [1967] 1 A.C. 115; [1966] 2 All E.R.

459. Constitution and Rules construed: Constitution of Sierra Leone, 1961 (No. 741, Second Schedule), s.24: The relevant terms of this section are set out at page 12, line 3- page 13, line 11.

STEELE v. ATT.-GEN., 1967-68 ALR S.L. 1 S.C. S preme Court Rules (Laws of Sierra Leone, 1960, cap. 7), O.II, r.l: u "Every action in the Supreme Court unless otherwise expressly pro vided for shall be commenced by a writ of summons, which shall be indorsed with a statement of the nature of the claim made, or of the relief or remedy required in the action." o.XVI, r.5: "Every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a summary form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved . . . ." a .XXI, r.4 : "The court may order any pleading to be struck out, on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or answer, and in any such case or in the case of the action or defence being shown by the pleadings to be frivolous or vexatious, the court may order the action to be stayed or dismissed, or judgment to be entered accord ingly, as may be just." B. Macaulay, Q.C., Att.-Gen., and Teian-Cole, Senior Crown Counsel, for the defendants-applicants. c. N. Rogers-Wright and Smythe for the plaintiffs-respondents. COLE, Ag. C.J.: Let me start by giving a resume of the history of this matter. By their writ of summons dated April 29th, 1965, the plaintiffs respondents instituted proceedings against the defendants-applicants. The writ of summons was generally indorsed, and the indorsement reads as follows : "The plaintiffs claim pursuant to s.24 of the Constitution as citizens of Sierra Leone against the Attorney-General of Sierra Leone as representative of the Government of Sierra Leone, and against the second defendant, the Hon. Banja Tejan-Sie, Speaker of the House of Representatives of Sierra Leone, appointed chairman of the committee hereinafter more particularly described, for a declaration : That the appointment of a one-party committee pro posed by the Government of Sierra Leone constitutes and is a threat to and an infringement of the constitutional provisions contained in ss. 12 to 23 (inclusive) of the Constitution and is specifically in breach of s.22 of the said Constitution and is therefore null, void and of no effect; and for an order: (a) That the said proposed committee, being an infringe ment as aforesaid of the undoubted and entrenched rights of the plaintiffs, be perpetually restrained from meeting or from proceeding in any form whatever.

so

THE AFHICAN LAW REPORTS (b) That the second defendant, the Ron. Banja Tejan Sie, Speaker of the House of Representatives of Sierra Leone, be restrained perpetually from convening a meeting of the said committee or from acting as chairman of the 5 said committee and for such further and other orders as in the premises shall be just." The statement of claim was delivered and filed on May 13th, 1966. It states : [The learned Acting Chief Justice read the statement of claim 10 and continued: ] On May 25th, 1966, upon application having been made to this court by the plaintiffs-respondents and after listening to arguments, I ordered that Mr. Abu Koroma be added as a defendant, and at the same time I granted the plaintiffs-respondents an interim 15 injunction. The defendants-applicants delivered and filed their statement of defence on May 28th, 1966. It is as follows : [The learned Acting Chief Justice read the defence and continued : ] 20 On that same day, May 28th, 1966, the defendants-applicants applied to move this court on June 2nd, 1966 for an order that the point of law raised in para. 7 of their statement of defence be set down for hearing and disposed of forthwith and before the trial of the issues of fact in the action. This motion was abandoned and 25 another dated June 2nd, 1966, was filed. This motion applied to move this court on June 6th, 1966- "for an order that the plaintiffs' statement of claim be struck out under the Supreme Court Rules, O.XXI, r.4 on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action, is frivolous and 30 vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court, and that the defendants be at liberty to sign judgment herein for their costs of defence and of this application; in the alternative, for an order that the points of law raised by the defendants in paras. 5 and 7 of their statement of defence be set down 35 for hearing and disposed of forthwith and before the trial of the issues of fact in this action." This motion was supported by the affidavit of Donald Marius Allison Macaulay, Acting Solicitor-General, sworn on June 2nd, 1966 and filed. That is the motion which is the subject-matter of this 40 decision. In the course of the hearing of the motion, in view of certain

STEELE v. ATT.-GEN., 1967-68 ALR S.L. 1 S.C. rulings I made (including an order made by me on June 7th, 1966 that the points of law raised in paras. 5 and 7 of the statement of defence would substantially dispose of the main action if decided in favour of the defendants-appellants), the plaintiffs-respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal. In consequence of a consent 5 order made by that court on July 8th, 1966 (which, inter alia, included my order that the points of law raised in paras. 5 and 7 of the defence do stand for argument and be disposed of before the trial), an amended statement of claim and an amended statement of defence were delivered and filed. The amended statement of claim was 10 delivered and filed on August 3rd, 1966, and it reads as follows : "1. The plaintiffs are each of them citizens of and resident in Sierra Leone. The first defendant is the Attorney-General of Sierra Leone and is sued in his capacity as representative of the Crown in Sierra Leone. The second defendant, the Hon. 15 Banja Tejan-Sie, is sued in his capacity as appointee of the Crown to lead the proposed committee the main subject-matter of these proceedings.

2. By Government Notice No. 347 M.P. C0/22/40/1 issued out of the Cabinet Secretariat, dated April 22nd, 1966 and 20 published in the Sierra Leone Gazette (Extraordinary) Volume XCVII, No. 32 of April 25th, 1966, the Government set up a committee with the following terms of reference : 'To collate and assess all views on the One Party System both in and out of Parliament and to make recom- 25 mendations on the type of One Party System suitable for Sierra Leone and the method by which it should be introduced.'

3. Representatives from certain bodies with the number of delegates each was allowed was also decided in this said 30 Government Notice and the Hon. Banja Tejan-Sie, Speaker of the House of Representatives, was nominated chairman.

4. The plaintiffs and each of them say that the proposed committee according to its restrictive terms of reference constitutes a distinct and certain threat to the rights entrenched 35 by s.22 of the Constitution.

5. The plaintiffs and each of them aver that they do not consent to any hindrance being put on their right to assemble freely and associate with other persons and in particular do not consent to any curtailment of their respective freedom to 40 belong to respective political associations, unions or parties for

so

the protection and advancement of their respective political interest.

6. The plaintiffs further aver that the proceedings and recom mendations of the said committee as is evidenced by the definitive terms of reference made it clear that their entrenched rights are likely to be contravened in relation to them.

7. The plaintiffs further say that no adequate means of redress are available to them under any other law. The plaintiffs' claim pursuant to s.24 of the Constitution is as citizens of Sierra Leone against the Attorney-General of Sierra Leone as representative of the Government of Sierra Leone, and against the second defendant, the Hon. Banja Tejan-Sie, Speaker of the House of Representatives of Sierra Leone, appointed chairman of the committee hereinafter more particularly described for a declaration : That the appointment of a one-party committee pro posed by the Government of Sierra Leone constitutes and is a threat to and an infringement of the constitutional provisions contained in ss. 12 to 23 (inclusive) of the Constitution and is specifically in breach of s.22 of the said Constitution and is therefore null, void and of no effect; and for an order: (a) that the said proposed committee, being an infringe ment as aforesaid of the undoubted and entrenched rights of the plaintiffs, be perpetually restrained from meeting or from proceeding in any form whatever; (b) that the said committee with its terms of reference as set out in Government Notice No. 347 M.P. C0/22/40/1 published in the Sierra Leone Gazette (Extraordinary) Volume XCVII, No. 32 of April 25th, 1966 constitute a threat to the rights entrenched by s.22 of the Sierra Leone Constitution and is unconstitutional and is null, void and of no effect; (c) that the second defendant, the Hon. Banja Tejan-Sie, Speaker of the House of Representatives of Sierra Leone, be restrained perpetually from convening a meeting of the said committee or from acting as chairman of the said com mittee; and for such further and other orders as in the premises shall be just."

STEELE v. ATT.-GEN., 1967-68 ALR S.L. 1 S.C. The amended statement of defence was delivered and filed on July 11th, 1966, and reads as follows: "1. In answer to para. 1 of the statement of claim, the defendants are unable to admit or deny the allegations contained therein except and in so far as such allegations concern 5 the first and second defendants, which allegations are admitted.

2. The defendants admit para. 2 of the statement of claim and in addition state that on July 17th, 1966 the Government issued a statement contained in a White Paper, as follows : 'GOVERNMENT WHITE PAPER on the Proposed Introduction of a Democratic One Party System in Sierra Leone Parliament at its Fourth Session 1965-66 passed the following resolution: "That Government give serious consideration to the introduction of a One Party System of government in

~~~: w

2. The idea of a One Party System has come about as a result of a genuine desire on the part of the Government for national unity, solidarity and progress. It has not been motivated by any thirst for power nor by any desire to entrench the present Government perpetually in power by 25 undemocratic and unconstitutional means. There is no intention whatsover on the part of the Government to impose any system on the people of this country. Any changes in our political system which are proposed, will only be brought about if the people agree to them, after SO being consulted by a method which is both constitutional and popularly acceptable.

3. In order therefore to ascertain the wishes of the people as a whole, it is the view of Government that the One Party System should be introduced by means of a referendum. 35 Since there is no provision in the Constitution for such a referendum, it will be necessary to amend the Constitution to provide for it. The Committee which will be appointed to study this question will however be free to consider other methods of ascertaining the wishes of the people. 40

4. Government has repeatedly told the public that it has

nothing to hide and it will be guided entirely by the will of the people in its consideration of the One Party System. Therefore the Prime Minister in a number of addresses to party rallies has made it clear that the various questions that arise in regard to the introduction of a One Party System will be referred to a Committee for thorough study. Government now takes the opportunity of setting down in this White Paper its views on the subject. It is hoped that these will form part of the basis or the starting point from which the proposed Committee, when appointed, will approach its work. These proposals are neither final nor complete; and although they indicate the thinking of the Government on the One Party System, they are not intended to exclude other ideas and other suggestions which may occur to members of the Committee and to members of the public. There is therefore nothing absolute or unchange able about them.