Sylvia O Blyden & Others v The Chief Electoral Commissioner & Others (7 of 2018; SC CIV 6 of 2018) [2021] SLSC 3 (13 April 2021)

1 | P a g e SC/CIV. 6 AND 7/2018 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEONE (CIVIL JURISDICTION) IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION AGAINST THE ELECTION OF HIS EXCELLENCY JULIUS MAADA BIO AS PRESIDENT OF SIERRA LEONE AS PER THE DECLARATION OF THE RESULT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL RUN-OFF ELECTIONS OF MARCH 31ST 2018 BY THE CHIEF ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER AND NATIONAL RETURNING OFFICER, MR. MOHAMED N’FAH ALIE CONTEH IN TERMS OF SECTIONS 32(1), 33, 36, 42, 45, 49, 122, 124(1)(a) AND 127(1) (AMONG OTHERS) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE ACT NO. 6 OF 1991; OF SECTIONS 51(3), 52(2), 55, 94, 161(1), 161(2) AND 168(2) (AMONG OTHERS) OF THE PUBLIC ELECTIONS ACT NO. 4 OF 2012 AND THE ELECTION PETITION RULES, STATUTORY INSTRUMENT NO. 7 OF 2007. IN THE MATTER FURTHER OF SECTIONS 74, 85, 87, 91, 92, 93 AND 147 (AMONG OTHERS) OF THE PUBLIC ELECTIONS ACT NO. 4 OF 2012; ALSO OF THE MARCH 2018 GUIDE FOR POLLING & COUNTING STAFF ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION; ALSO OF THE MARCH 2018 POLLING & COUNTING PROCEDURES ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION AND THE ELECTIONS 2018 TALLYING AND RESULTS PROCEDURES ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION. IN THE MATTER STILL FURTHER MORE OF SECTION 55(1) OF THE PUBLIC ELECTIONS ACT NO.4 OF 20 12 F. ORDER 3, SUBRULES 2(1) & (5) OF THE HIGH COURT RULES 2007, CONSTITUTIONAL INSTRUMENT NO. 8 OF 2007, OF RULES 98 OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES, PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 1 OF 1982; AND OF SUBRULES 5(4) (AMONG OTHERS) OF THE ELECTION PETITION RULES, STATUTORY INSTRUMENT NO. 7 OF 2007. 2 | P a g e BETWEEN: - DR. SYLVIA OLAYINKA BLYDEN - 1ST PETITIONER/RESPONDENT 24 GARRISON STREET, FREETOWN AND THE CHIEF ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER - 1ST RESPONDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION - 2ND RESPONDENT HIS EXCELLENCY JULIUS MAADA BIO - 3RD RESPONDENT/APPLICANT SIERRA LEONE PEOPLES PARTY (SLPP) - 4THRESPONDENT/APPLICANT AND IN THE MATTER OF PETITION AGAINST THE ELECTION OF HIS EXCELLENCY RTD. JULIUS MAADA BIO AS PRESIDENT OF SIERRA LEONE AS PER THE DECLARATION OF THE RESULT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS OF 31ST MARCH 2018 BY THE CHIEF ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER AND NATIONAL RETURNING OFFICER, MR. MOHAMED N’FAH ALIE CONTEH IN TERMS OF SECTIONS 32(1), 33, 36, 38 42, 44, 45, 122(1), 122(3), 124(1)(A) AND 127(1) (AMONG OTHERS) CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE ACT NO. 6 OF 1991. AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 2, 7, 12, 13, 16, 19, 51(3), 53, 53(2), 55, 74, 85, 87, 90-94, 127, 161(1), 162 AND 168(2) OF THE PUBLIC ELECTIONS ACT NO. 4 OF 2012 AND ALSO OF THE QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE FOR POLLING AND COUNTING 2012; PRESIDENTIAL, PARLIAMENTARY AND LOCAL COUNCIL ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION. AND IN THE MATTER STILL FURTHERMORE OF SECTIONS 45(5) OF THE PUBL IC ELECTIONS ACT NO. 4 OF 2012. AND IN THE MATTER STILL FUTHERMORE OF SECTION 14(1) OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES REGISTRATION ACT NO. 3 OF 2002; OF ORDER 3, SUB -RULES 2(1) & 5 OF THE HIGH COURT RULES 2007; CONSTITUTIONAL INSTRUMENT NO. 8 OF 2007; OF RULE 98 OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES AND OF RULES 5 SUB -RULE (2) AND 3 | P a g e RULE 89 OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES STATUTORY INSTRUMENT NO. 1 OF 1982. BETWEEN: - 1. DR. SAMURA MATTHEW WILSON KAMARA -2NDPETITIONER/RESPONDENT 2. HON. ALHAJI MINKAILU MANSARAY -3RDPETITIONER/RESPONDENT 3. DR. OSMAN FODAY YANSANEH -4TH PETITIONER/RESPONDENT AND MOHAMED N’FAH ALLIE CONTEH -1STRESPONDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION -2NDRESPONDENT HIS EXCELLENCY JULIUS MAADA BIO -3rdRESPONDENT/APPLICANT CORAM: HON. JUSTICE DESMOND BABATUNDE EDWARDS CJ HON. JUSTICE NICHOLAS BROWNE-MARKE JSC HON. JUSTICE EKU ROBERTS JSC HON. JUSTICE ALUSINE SESAY JSC HON. IVAN ANSUMANA SESAY JA REPRESENTATION: DR. SYLVIA OLAYINKA BLYDEN - IN PERSON FOR THE FIRST PETITIONER COUNSEL: LANSANA DUMBUYA ESQ WITH HIM MR. F. MANSARAY FOR THE 2ND, 3RD & 4TH PETITIONERS EMMANUEL SAFFA ABDULAI - FOR THE 1ST & 2ND RESPONDENTS GEORGE BANDA-THOMAS ESQ WITH HIM MUSA MEWA, TUMA ADAMA JABBIE, MOHAMMED KENNEH ESQ, I. F. SAWANEH, L. M. BAYOH AND KENGEN WEH ESQ FOR THE 3RD & 4TH RESPONDENTS/ APPLICANTS 4 | P a g e RULING DELIVERED THIS 20TH DAY OF APRIL , 2021 BY JUSTICE DESMOND BABATUNDE EDWARDS CJ BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION THE ELECTION 1. On the 7 th & 31 st March 2018, Sierra Leone’s Presidential Election and the subsequent Presidential Run Off-Elections were respectively held in Sierra Leone. On the 13th of March 2018, the 2nd Respondent, the National Electoral Commission (NEC) (hereinafter referred to as NEC) pronounced the 7th March 2018 Presidential Elections Results with the SLPP’s Candidate, Brigadier Rtd. Julius Maada Bio polling 43.257% of the votes cast coming first, while the APC Candidate, Dr. Samura Mathew Wilson Kamara, came 2nd polling 42.676% of the votes cast. 2. As there were other candidates in this 7 th March 2018 Presidential Elections and none polled the required 55% of the votes cast to emerge victorious and President of Sierra Leone , the 1st Respondent as Chief Electoral Commissioner & National Returning Officer was compelled pursuant to Section 42(2)(f) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone Act No 6 of 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1991Constitution ’) to set up the two candidates with the highest number of votes cast for a second round elections, the Presidential Run-Off Elections. The Presidential Run-off Elections were held on the 31st of March 2018 and on the 4th of April, 2018, the Results were declared. SLPP’s Candidate Brigadier Rtd . Julius Maada Bio emerged as the w inner with 1, 319,406 of the votes cast representing 51.81% of the votes Cast. He assumed Office as President of Sierra Leone immediately thereafter, after being sworn in as President 5 | P a g e the very day pursuant to Section 42(3) of the 1991 Constitution and Section 54(1) the Public Elections Act No 4 of 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PEA No 4 of 2012’). 3. These Elections w ere according to the general view of Local and Interna tional observers considered and/ or held to be hugely peaceful and fre e from violence. The Petitioners’ view, nonetheless, was that these elections were marred with irregularities, malpractices, harassment, fraud and even corrupt practices by officials and agents of NEC, the 2nd Respondent herein, in collusion with a gents and o perators of His Excellency The President , the 3rd Respondent herein & his Party the SLPP , the 4th Respondent herein, which required those results to be overt urned with consequential and ancillary reliefs granted. 4. Consequent upon same , before 7 day s from the declarati on of the result on the 4th April 2018 expired, after which any action to challenge the validity of the Election Results would be statute barred 4 persons in the persons of Dr Sylvia Olayinka Blyden on the one hand and Dr Samura Mathew Wilson Kamara, Mr Minkailu Mansaray and Ambassador Dr Foday Yansaneh, on the other hand , challenged the validity of those Elections in 2 separate actions/ election petitions, to wit, SC6 / 2018 and SC 7 / 2018 respectively, with both actions filed on the same day i.e. on the 9th of April 2018. THE PETITIONS 5. On the 9th April, 2018, four (4) persons challenged the validity of those Presidential Elections by p etitioning to the Supreme Court . The first was the Petition from Dr Sylvia Olayinka Blyden intituled SC6/2018 while the 2nd is a petition by 3 persons in the persons of Dr Samura Wilson Mathew Kamara, Mr Minkailu Mansaray and Dr Foday Yansaneh (hereinafter referred to as Dr Samura Kamara & 2 others intituled SC7/ 2018. The gravamen of these petitions is detailed in their respective petitions. I would attempt to replicate them herein almost verbatim. 6 | P a g e 1ST PETITIONER’S CASE 6. In the case of the first petitioner Dr Sylvia Blyden she stated as follows: 1. That immediately after the March 7th 2018 elections there was a huge outcry of votes rigging across the country and that all the major political parties demanded a recount of all disputed poll results while challenging the credibility of the elections. 221 polling stations were excluded, including where the votes cast exceeded the number of registered voters (including voters included on the supplementary list). 2. That on 19 th March 2018 , in her capacity as a member of the 4 -man APC Supervisory team , she attended a meeting with the Chief Electoral Commissioner and National returning officer as 1st Respondent, other members, NEC and representatives of 4th Respondent SLPP. 3. That at the meeting, it came out clearly that the March 7 th 2018 presidential elections had been conducted in complete contravention of Section 94 and Section 91 of the PEA No 4 of 2012. 4. That the 1st Respondent and 2nd Respondent confessed to have broken the Law in how presidential elections should be conducted but stated it was due to a matter of expediency in view of wh ich they decided to use a short -cut method instead of following the dictates of Sections 91, 93 and 94 of the Public Elections Act. 5. That consequent upon the above, she as voter now petitioner was very much alarmed and said such should not repeat during the Run-off elections. 7 | P a g e 6. That she told 1st and 2nd Respondents that by breaching Sections 91, 93 and 94 of the Public Elections Act, they had exposed the integrity of the transfer of the results to possible hacking by Information Technology criminals. 7. That she also brought to the attention of the 1 st Respondent and the 2nd Respondent that the numbers for many of the results published on the website of the 2nd Respondent, just did not add up. 8. That on Friday, March 23rd 2018, the 1st Respondent and 2nd Respondent invited the APC and the SLPP alongside the entire Diplomatic and Consular Corp plus United Nations officials to witness a demonstration of their tallying systems. 9. That at that meeting in the presence of Diplomats and the Press, she, on behalf of the APC brought out a worrying discovery that Voter Register by Polling Centres which were published on the website of NEC the 2nd Respondent by the 1st Respondent, were at variance with another unknown set of Voter Register by Polling Centres which 1st Respondent and 2nd Respondent were using. 10. That when the NEC Website Voter Register was used to calculate around issues of over -voting and cancellations, the APC’s Samura Kamara automatically became the lead candidate of the First Rounds but when the other unknown Voter Register was used, the SLPP’s Julius Maada Bio turned into the lead candidate. 11. That the 1st Respondent publicly accepted the error and confirmed that he used the unknown Voter Register. 12. This clearly was why 1st Defendant had placed SLPP’s Julius Maada Bio as the first-place candidate for the First Round. 8 | P a g e 13. That the 1st Respondent, the Chief Electoral Commissioner publicly promised to investigate and report back to the APC as to what was the reason for the variance given the fact that when one set of Voter Register is used, it changes the results significantly over when the other unknown Voter Register is used. 14. That at the time of filing this Petition, despite several reminders in writing and also through press releases, there has been no explanation from 1 st Respondent as to why there were two different sets of numbers of voters on those Voter registers. 15. That rather, yet another Voter register was again issued to political parties on the eve of the Run -off Elections; now giving three (3) different sets of spreads of voters per polling station. Three different Voter Registers for the same presidential election. 16. The Run-off election was scheduled for 27 th March 2018, but legal battles in court prevented that from happening. The elections finally were held on the 31st March 2018. After elections were closed on Election Day, 31st March 2018, the Respondents started counting the ballots in the presence of Party agents. Some APC Party agents deployed in the south-east of the country reported that they were violently intimidated and so had to leave without waiting for counting to conclude. Others reported widespread cases of over -voting in hundreds of polling stations in the south -east when using the third version of the Voter Register supplied to APC on March 30th, 2018. 17. That on the 2 nd April 2018, the APC sent petitions to the Res pondents for a recount of the polling stations where over voting have been reported. Although Respondents acknowledged receipt of the petitions, and assured APC Party that 9 | P a g e the complaints will be looked into, the issues raised in the petitions were never addressed. 18. That on the 4th April 2018, the 1st Respondent went ahead, without full and frank disclosure of reasons behind the variance in Voter Registers neither assurances concerning over-voting raised by APC, to declare Julius Maada Bio as Winner of the Presidential Elections; contrary to the Public Elections Act of 2012. 19. That the influence of foreigners, notably former African Heads of States in persons of H.E. DR. Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria and H.E. DR. John Mahama of Ghana, strengthened the resolve of 1 st Respondent, 2 nd Respondent, 3rd Respondent and 4th Respondent to flout the Laws of Sierra Leone, primarily Sections 91, 93 and 94 of the Public Elections Act of 2012. 20. That as a result of refusing t o go by the PEA No 2012 which called for an organised District-Level tallying, many mistakes and other deliberate rigging actions happened in the tallying process thus skewing the results against APC. 21. That as a further result of 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant refusing to effectively use their announced Parallel Tallying System with Microsoft Excel software during District-Level tallying, the 1st Respondent and 2nd Respondent connived with 3 rd Respondent and 4 th Respondent to cheat the APC and the APC candidate. 22. That as an even further result of insisting on using the specialized TALLY 2018 software, a lot of cheating of the APC candidate happened by the computer system. 10 | P a g e 23. That for example, in Polling Centre 10157; Polling Station Number 01 in Port Loko District, she discovered at the Port Loko tallying centre that the suspicious TALLY 2018 software had cheated the APC candidate, Samura Kamara whose votes were automatically slashed from 279 votes to 223 votes whilst the results of the SLPP candidate, Julius Bio was automatically increased from 4 votes to 9 votes. 24. That overall, the 1 st Respondent was partial against the APC in the conduct of the said First Round and also Ru n-offs of the Presidential Elections which he systematically planned and executed in favour of the 3 rd & 4th Respondents to the detriment of the APC. 25. That since the Public Elections Act was created by Section 44 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone Act No 6 of 1991, the breach of the Public Elections Act whilst conducting the Presidential Election was and is therefore unconstitutional. She prayed for the following reliefs: 1. A DECLARATION that the conduct of the March 7 th, 2018 and March 31 st, 2018 Presidential Elections and Presidential Run-off Elections respectively, were in breach of several mandatory dictates of the Public Elections Act No. 4 of 2012. 2. A DECLARATION that the conduct of the March 7 th, 2018 and March 31 st, 2018 Presidential Elections were conducted amidst intimidation, violence, impropriety, malpractices and several irregularities thus making them not to be free and fair. 3. A DECLARATION that the election of Julius Maada Bio, the SLPP candidate was therefore not valid and that he was not duly elected as President of the Republic of Sierra Leone. 11 | P a g e 4. That this Honourable Court directs another Presidential Election to be held within 90 days from the date of the judgement and Order. THE CASE OF DR SAMURA KAMARA & OTHERS THE 2ND 3RD AND 4TH PETITIONERS 7. In the case of the 2 nd, 3rd and 4th petitioners the content of their petition stated as follows: 1. That the conduct of the 31 st March, 2018 Presidential Run-off Elections was improper and fraught with irregularities. 2. That they have annexed to their petition the following documents which in their opinion, might assist this Honourable Court in resolving the issues calling for determination herein: - i. Copies of Press Statements from the All Peoples Congress (APC) complaining incidences of electoral malpractices and irregularities. ii. Copies of Letters written by the APC and addressed to NEC complaining incidences of electoral malpractices and irregularities. iii. A copy of a List of all Polling Centres and the grand total of Registered voters within that Centre. iv. List of 221 Polling Stations excluded in final tally of the 7th March, 2018 Presidential elections because the votes cast exceeded the number of registered voters. v. Copy of the final results of the 7th March, 2018, Presidential elections. vi. A copy of a tabulated breakdown of 400 Polling Stations evidencing excess number of valid votes more than Registered Voters and the percentage of such excess over -voting of the Presidential elections of 7th March, 2018. 12 | P a g e vii. A copy of an Analysis Report evidencing excess number of valid votes more than Registered Voters and the percen tage of such excess over - voting of the 31stMarch, 2018 Run-Off Presidential elections. viii. Copies of Voter Registration for the 7th March, 2018 and the 31st March, 2018 Presidential electio ns showing gaping discrepancies and inconsistencies. ix. Affidavit of Horace Dove-Edwin, sworn to at Freetown, April, 2018. 3. The Petitioner s averred that the election was not conducted substantially in accordance with the 1991 Constitution, or the 2012 Elections Act and the governing Regulations. 4. In particular, the Petitioner s averred that NEC failed to establish and maintain an accurate Voter Register that was publicly available, veritable and credible as required by Section 42 of the 1991 Constitution, and S ections 12 -22 of the Public Elections Act, 2012 and the Elections Regulations, 2007. 5. In addition, they claimed that the true number of registered voters was unknown and/or illusive, therefore, NEC did not have an accur ate voters’ register. They asserted that the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents changed the official numb er of registered voters and that the absence of a credible Principal Na tional Voter Register vitiated the validity of the Presidential elections. 6. The Petitioners further assert ed that the electoral manageme nt system adopted by the NEC was complex and had m any shortfalls, contrary to the statutory requirement that it be a simple, accurate, verifiable, secure, accountable and transparent system. The Petitioners aver red that the failure of the electronic system put in place by the NEC affected the validity of the Presidential elections. They submitted that NEC conceded at a point that the names of 38,000 voters were missing from or in the system and to date no credible explanation was offered to resolve what they termed the “Bermuda Triangle” of voters’ particulars. 13 | P a g e 7. They averred that as required by Section 87(2) of the Public Elections Act of 2012, the 1 st Defendant ought to have declared the results of every polling stations where over voting took place NULL and VOID but failed to do so noting that NEC ought not to have included the vote count of those impugned polling stations in the final tally of Results. 8. That on the 4th April 2018, the 1st respondent and chairman of NEC without full and frank disclosure of the over-voting concerns pronounced Brigadier Rtd. Julius Maada Bio as the Winner of the Presidential Elections contrary to the Public Elections Act No. 4 of 2012. 9. That following the March 7th Elections during which there was a huge outcry of votes rigging across the country and 221 polling stations were excluded, including where the votes cast exceeded the number of registered voters (including voters included on the supplementary list) on the 31 st March 2018, after the counting of the ballots by NEC officers, there was widespread over - voting again in Kailahun, Kenema, Kono, Bo, Bonthe, Moyamba and Pujehun. There was a huge outcry of votes rigging in those areas and a major political party demanded a recount of all disputed poll results. 10. That notwithstanding the outcry, and challenge on the credibility of the run -off results, the 1 st Respondent went ahead to include results of over -voting in Kailahun, Kenema, Kono, Bo, Bonthe, Moyamba and Pujehun as part of the final tallying. The inclusion of over -voting results in the final tallying had a prejudicial effect on the percentage votes won by Rtd. Brig. Julius Maada Bio. 11. Consequent upon the above the 1st and 2nd Respondents did not discharge their obligation under the Constitution, because the tallying and verification of the results did not happen at the polling stations. 14 | P a g e 12. Also, they stated that the 1 st Respondent failed to carry out a transparent, verifiable, accurate and accountable election as required by Sections 33 -38, of the 1991 Constitution in that there were several anomalies that occurred in the process of manual tallying, such as the votes cas t in several polling stations exceeding the number of registered voters; differences between results posted and the results released by the 1st Respondent; the use of fake RRF Forms to declare the results. 13. Furthermore, there was widespread intimidation, ha rassment and assault on Polling Agents of the Petitioners, particularly in the Kenema, Kailahun, Pujehun and Bo Districts by SLPP Operatives in collusion with NEC Officials. This laid the foundation for ballot stuffing to swell votes in favour of Rtd. Bri g. Julius Maada Bio to the detriment of the 1st Petitioner in particular. 14. The Petitioner averred that the electoral process was so fundamentally flawed that it precluded the possibility of discerning whether the presidential results declared were lawful. 15. As a result of the particulars of irregularities referenced herein the y claimed to have been deprived of victory in the election for the presidency of the Republic of Sierra Leone, and the 1 st Respondent notwithstanding the irregularities declared Rtd. Brig Julius Maada Bio as President. 7. The Petitioners prayed as follows: 1. That the Court determines that the 1 st Respondent acted illegally when he included results of polling stations where over voting was recorded in the final tallying. 2. That the Court directs that all results of polling station where over voting took place be excluded from the final tallying and final result declared by the 1st Respondent. 15 | P a g e 3. That the Court directs that the declaration of Rtd. Brig. Julius Maada Bio, as duly elected President in the Presidential Elections held on the 31 st March, 2018 was invalid and cannot be supported by law. 4. Any other or further Order(s) that this Honourable Court may deem fit and just. 5. The COSTS of this Petition to be paid by the Respondents jointly and severally. CONSOLIDATION OF PETITIONS 8. On an Application dated 29 th May 2018 brought on b ehalf of the His Excellency Brigadier Rtd Julius Maada Bio and the Sierra Leone Peoples Party SLPP the 3 rd and 4th Respondents respectively in the Election petitions brought by Dr Sylvia O Blyden as SC6 /2018 and Dr Samura Kamara & others as SC7 / 2018 the A pplicants herein requested and or sought from this Honourable Court a consolidation of these separate petitions to One consolidated petition as these cases exhibit some common question of law or fact and that the right to relief arises fro m the same set of transaction. The Application was granted and consequently both sets of petitions were consolidated by the Supreme Court presided by my learned brother Justice N. C Browne -Marke JSC through order dated 18TH JULY 2018. Thus, the titled of the case changed to SC6 and SC7 /2018. 9. Most importantly it needs be said at the outset that b oth sets of Petitions did not contain exh ibits and were mere allegations. T hey were supported by affidavits in support which also did not contain any exhibits and were filed under the Electoral Laws A ct 2002 ; Elections Petitions Rules Statutory Instrument No 7 of 2007 . Suffice it to say that on the 3rd of August 2018, after the court had given the order for consolidation dated 18th July 2018, the 3rd and 4th respondents/Applicants herein filed yet another application for the pe titions herein to be struck out and with costs . The 16 | P a g e Petitioners in the ir final closing argume nts claimed that the Application for Consolidation constituted Fresh step. THE APPLICATION 10. By Notice of motion dated 3rd August 2018 made under the consolidated petitions intituled SC6/2018 and SC7/2018, His Excellency Brigadier Rtd Julius Maada Bio (hereinafter referred to as HE the President ) and the Sierra Leone People‘s Party (hereinafter referred to as the SLPP), the 3rd & 4 th Respondents / Applicants herein applied to this Honourable Supreme Court for the following reliefs: 1. That this Honourable Court do make an order striking out the consolidated petitions herein on the following grounds: - a) that the Petitioners did not serve the Election Petitions SC 6/2018 and SC 7/2018 personally on the 3rd and 4th Respondents/Applicants herein within five days of the presentation of each election petition contrary to the Election Petition Rules EPR SI NO 7 of 2007 (hereinafter referred to as EPR 2007), to wit, Rules 12 (1) and (3) nor did the petitioners and agents deliver same to an appointed agent of the 3 rdand 4thRespondents/Applicants as required by Rule 12 (2) OF EPR2007; b) That the Petitioners/respondents did not serve the petition herein on the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice who is not named specifically as a defendant-contrary to Rule 89 (3) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1982. This ground was later abandoned; c) That the petitioners/respondents failed to comply with Rule 6 (1) of the EPR 2007 in that they failed to leave at the Registry a notice signed by them or on their behalf, giving the name of a legal practitioner who has the authority to act as their agent or stating that the petitioner acts for himself or herself; 17 | P a g e d) That the petitioners/Respondents, severally, have failed to give security in the form of deposit in the sum of Le 1, 000,000.00 and by recognizance of that same amount entered into by two sureties or by payment of deposit money in lieu of any such recognizance contr ary to EPR 2007, Rule 14 (2); e) That the Petitioners/Respondents did not serve the 3rd Respondent/Applicant nor the 4 th Respondent/Applicant with the notice of compliance with Election Petition Rules 2007, Rule14, as to the giving of security of costs, within five days of the presentation of the petition, contrary to Election Petition Rules 2007, Rule 12 (1); f) That the Petitioners/Respondents have failed to comply with Rule 13 of the Election Petition Rule 2007 in that no affidavit of the time, place and manner of service of the petition was filed by them or on their behalf within three days of the service of each of the petitions. 2. Further and/or in the alternative that this Honourable Court do make an order striking out the consolidated petitions on the grounds that the affidavit filed in support of each petition: i. Is fundamentally and substantially flawed and defective; ii. Does not set forth as concisely as possible the nature of the reliefs sought by the petitioners and does not state the following: a) The capacity in which each petitioner is petitioning; b) The address for service of the petitioner or his or her counsel; c) The names and addresses of all parties who may be directly affected by the petition as is required by Rule 89 (2 ) of the Supreme Court Rules 1982; iii. Documents listed in the Petition SC 7/2018 to substantiate the several allegations contained in the said petition, have not been exhibited in the 18 | P a g e supporting affidavit-Contrary to Rule 11 of Order 31 of the High Court Rules. 3. Further or alternatively that this Honourable Court do make an order that the consolidated petitions be struck out on the grounds that they disclose no cause of action. 4. That this Honourable Court do make an order staying all further or other proceedings in this Petition pending the hearing and determination of this application except in relation to this application herein. 5. Any other order that this Honourable Court may deem fit and just.’ 6. That the costs of this application be costs in favour of the 3rd Respondent/Applicant and the 4th Respondent/Applicant. 12. The Application was supported by the affidavit of Musa Mewa sworn to on the 2nd of August 2018 and to which were attached the following exhibits viz ; Exhibits A1 and A2 which are Notices of Appointment as Solicitor of the Law firm of Brewah & Co Solicitors as Solicitor and Agent for the 3rd Respondent/Applicant herein dated the 4th May 2018 and the notice of acceptance by the Law firm respectively also dated 4th May 2018; Exhibit B1 and B2 which are notices of Appointment of the Law firm of Brewah & Co Solicitors, as Solicitor and Agent for the 4th Respondent herein and the Solicitor’s Acceptance as A gent respectively both dated the 23 rd of April 20 18 addressed to the 1st Petitioner; Exhibit C1 and C2 which are Notices of Appointment as Solicitor and Agent for the 3rd and 4th Respondents and the Solicitor’s acceptance as Agent for the 3rd and 4 th Respondents herein dated 4th MAY addressed to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Petitioners herein; Exhibit D1 and D2 are copies of the respective petitions viz. Exhibit D1 is the Petition intituled SC 6 / 2018 while exhibit D2 is the Petition intituled SC7 / 2018 both consolidated here in as SC6 and SC7 /2018; Exhibit E is the Order of the Supreme Court Dated 18 th July 2018 consolidating SC6 /2018 which is the Petition of Dr Sylvia Olayinka Blyden with SC7/2018 which is the Petition of Dr Samura Wilson Mathew Kamara, Minkailu Mansaray and Dr Foday Yansaneh all into one consolidated action intituled SC 6 and 7/2018 ; Exhibit F1 and F2 is t he 19 | P a g e affidavit of service of the Election Petition SC6/ 2018 filed in respect of the 1st and 2nd Respondents and the 3rd and 4th Respondents/ Applicants respectively. It is was sworn to on the 20th of April, 2018 and is the affidavit of service of the election petition SC 7/2018 on the 3rd Respondent herein. It was sworn on the 12th of April 2018. 13. The Respondents/Applicants relied on the ent ire affidavit paragraphs 1 – 15. He also relie d on supplemental affidavits and/or further af fidavit sworn to on the 18th January, 2021 to which was attached a search fee advice and receipt both dated 15th January, 2021 showing that this Honourable court never made an order for substituted service of the petition. The Petitioner respondents opposed the Application and each, to wit, Dr Sylvia Blyden for the 1st Petitioner and Mr. Lansana Dumbuya for Dr Samura Kam ara and the 2 others filed an affidavit in Opposition to which were attached several exhibits . In the case of the 1 st Petitioner she filed an affidavit in opposition sworn to on the 5 th September 2018 and a supplemental / further affidavit sworn to the 21 st of January 2021. On the affidavit in opposition were attached the following exhibits, to wit, Exhibit SOB1A which is the Petition of Dr. Blyden intituled SC6 / 2018 before consolidation; Exhibit SOB1B which is the affidavit in support of the aforesaid petition SC6/2 018 and the certificate of Appointment to act by herself as petitioner in person ; Exhibit SOB 2 is a notice allegedly pursuant to Rule 7 of the Election Petition Rules 2007 that the 1 st petitioner will be acting for herself and that she was her own agent in respect of this petition; Exhibit SOB3 which is purportedly a NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE filed ; Exhibit SOB 4 is a copy of the NRA receipt dated 10th April 2018 seen on the receipt showing payment r eceived from Dr Sylvia Blyden for the Petition; EXHIBIT SOB 5 is receipt signed by one Jefferson Williams who claims to be acting on b ehalf of the Registrar of the Supreme C ourt for the sum of Le1,000,000.00 as money towards recognisances dated 9 th April 2018 ; Exhibit SOB 6 is the actual deposit of this money to the Judicial Sub treasury dated the 10th of April 2018; Exhibit SOB 7 is an affidavit of service by Jefferson Williams senior bailiff in the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone sworn to on the 20th of April, 2018 to the 20 | P a g e effect that on Thursday 12 th April 2018 he did serve on the 1 st 2nd and 3rd Respondents herein a copy of the Petition, affidavit in support of the petition, Notice of Appointment of self as A gent and Notice of C ompliance leaving same with one Francess Jabati in the case of the 1st and 2 nd Respondents at the National Electoral Commission Office a t State Avenue Freetown and for the HE the president 3rd Respondent, one Sgt Ramatu Bangura at the Police Post at State House and that further, he did, on the 17th of April serve the 4 th Respondent at Brewah and Co Solicitors, No 2 Siaka Stevens Street Freetown leaving same with one Shangarie Esq; Exhibit SOB8 is a way book copy showing signatures from the said person s; Exhibit SOB 9 is a Memorandum and Notice of Appearance entered dated the 17th of April 2018 for the 3rdRespondent / Applicant herein . The aforesaid affidavit in opposition was pursuant to the order of this court dated 3rd December 2020 refiled on the 24th of December 2020. The petitioner also filed a further affidavit sworn to on the 21st of January 2021. It had no exhibit. 14 In the case of Dr Samura Kamara & others as 2nd, 3 rd and 4th Petitioners/Respondents, Lansana Dumbuya as their solicitor filed an affidavit in Opposition sworn to on the 14th of January 2021 to which were attached the following exhibits. EXHIBIT LD1 which is a copy of the Petition including a statement of case; EXHIBIT LD2 which is a copy of the Notice of Appointment of Solicitor and Agent and the acceptance thereof dated the 9 th of April 2018 ; EXHIBIT LD3 which is a copy of the Le1,000,000.00 deposit as security for cost ; EXHIBIT LD4 is a copy of the purported NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE ; EXHIBIT LD5 which is copy of affidavit of service sworn to on the 12th April 2021 on the 1st , 2nd and 3rd Respondents herein and the way book page and EXHIBIT LD6 which is a copy of notice of motion dated 13th April for Substituted service and the affidavit in support addressed to 1st, 2nd and 3 rd Respondents herein. The Petitioners relied on their e ntire affidavits in opposition. 21 | P a g e 15. The above Application first came up for hearing on the 3rd of December 2020 and this court was able to give directions on the matter following the length of time this matter had laid idle with no action . Among the directions given was that each party could file further affidavits on or against the 21 st of January, 2021. On the 21st of January 2021, before the Court could hear the arguments on the application of 3rd August 2018, counsel for the Applicant herein Mr George Banda -Thomas sought and obtained leave of the court to make an amendment to HE the PRESIDENT AND SLPP, the 3rd & 4th Respondents/Applicants’ Notice of Motion dated 3rd August 2018 by the addition of the following 6 th ground for striking out the Consolidated petitions SC Cases 6 and SC7 /2018. It reads thus: 6.‘Further or in the Alternative this Honourable Court do strike out the Petition SC6 and SC7/2018 on the ground that an Election Petition is not an Appropriate ORIGINATING PROCESS to Invoke the Originating Jurisdiction Of the Supreme Court’ 16. After the granting of this order, the motion was finally heard by this Honourable Court on the 2nd of February 2021 and by the 2nd Of March 2021 every party had been heard with the matter deferred for Ruling with a date to be fixed for the Ruling and notices to be sent. Hearing of the Application by HE the President and the SLPP 3rd and 4th Respondents/Applicants 17. Mr George Banda-Thomas counsel for H.E. the President and the SLPP referred to the Notice of motion dated 3rd AUGUST 2018 and the affidavit in support filed therein sworn to on the 2nd of August 2018. The Court having given leave to all sides to file any necessary affidavit (s) on or before the 21 st of January 2021 , Mr Banda -Thomas also referred to and made use of the Affidavits of Brig Rtd Julius Maada B io and Umaru Napoleon Koroma sworn to on the 12th and 18th of January 2021 respectively and lastly the supplemental A ffidavit of Musa Mewa sworn to on the 18th of January 22 | P a g e 2021. The affidavit of Julius Maada Bio, President was to the effect that he won the Presidential run-off Elections on the 31st of March 2018 and was declared President of the Republic of Sierra Leone exhibiting the following documents – a certified statement from the Chairman and National Returning Office Exhibited as JMB1 and a certified final res ult of the P residential Run-off Elections Results declared on the 31st March 2018 Exhibited as JMB2; that after the declaration he was im mediately sworn into office as P resident but that he was never personally served wi th Exhibit JMB 3 & JMB 4 which are the Election Petitions of Dr Sylvia Blyden on the one hand and Dr Samura Kamara and 2 others on the other hand ; that further, he was also not served with notice of compliance pursuant to Rule 14 as to th e giving of security for costs and that it was not until the 4 th of MAY 2018 that he as the 3 rd respondent appointed Brewah and C o Solicitors as his Agent in respect of these petitions . The affidavit of Umaru Napoleon Koroma deposed to the fact that as Secretary- General of the SLPP, the 4th Respondent herein, he was never personally served with the petitions herein or a certified copy thereof and that further he was never served with a notice of compliance with the EPR 2007 Rule 14 as to the giving of security for costs; and that it was not until the 23rd of April 2018 that the 4 th Respondent Appointed Brewah and Co Solicitors as the agent and legal representative in respect of these petitions. There was no objection to the use of these affidavits. SUBMISSIONS & ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL AND THE 1st PETITIONER IN PERSON a) Arguments By George Banda-Thomas Counsel for HE the P resident and the SLPP, the 3rd and 4th Respondents /Applicants herein 18. To start his arguments on the motion, Counsel for HE the President and the SLPP, the 3rd and 4th Respondents/Applicants, Mr George Banda-Thomas went on to argue this 6th ground as their primary ground for requesting the striking out of the Petitions herein, to wit, ‘that this Ho nourable Court do strike out both petitions herein consolidated as SC cases 6 and 7 /2018 on the ground that an Election Petition which 23 | P a g e is the originating process adopted by both sets of Petitioners is not or was not the appropriate originating process to invok e the origina l jurisdiction of the Supreme Court’. He chose to argue same as his major and primary ground for applying to this Honourable Court for those consolidated petitions to be struck out with cost relegating the other grounds to ‘in the alternative ’ should this ground fail. To buttress his submission, he referred the court to Exhibits D1 & D2 which are the P etitions of Dr Sylvia Blyden, 1st Petitioner as SC 6/2018, and Dr. Samura Kamara & others , the 2nd, 3rd & 4th Petitions as SC 7/2018. He observed that an examination of both petitions do show that the petitioners having adopted the process of Petition through the Election Petition Rules 2007 were challenging the validity of the Election of the 3rd Respondent/Applicant herein as President and raising questions relating to the Election of the President. He referred this Honourable Court to Section 45 (2) of the Constitution and argued that they were asking 2 questions viz , Firstly, w hether any provision of this Constitution or any law relating to the Election of a President under Sections 42 & 43 of this Constitution have been complied with and secondly, whether His Excellency, the President the 3 rd Respondent/Applicant herein has been validly elected President under Section 42 of the Constitution or any other law, both of which, were questions regarding the interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution. 19.He argued that this being the case , Section 124 (1) (a) of the 1991 Constitution provided that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction to the total exclusion of all other courts in all matters relating t o the enforcement an d interpretation of the 1991 Constitu tion. Such original jurisdiction , he noted , cannot and should not be exercised by any other means but by Originating Notice of Motion courtesy of Rule 89 of the Supreme Court Rules PN No 1 of 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Supreme Court Rules 1982’) which provides under part 16 thereof - under the rubric Original Jurisdiction, Rule 89 (1) – ‘Save as otherwise provided in these Rules an action brought to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall be commenced by 24 | P a g e Originating Notice of Motion….which shall be signed by the plaintiff or the counsel’. 20. He argued that the framers of the 1991 Constitution were supposedly aware of the 1982 Supreme Court Rules yet in imposing such original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court by virtue of Section 45(2), 124 and 127 of the 1991 Constitution did not provide any alternative means to invoking the Supreme Court Original Jurisdiction but by the aforesaid means of Originating Notice of Motion which was already in existence . He argued that the beauty or advantage for proceeding with an Originating Notice of Motion vis a vis the Election Petition Rules SI NO 7 of 2007 ( hereinafter referred to as the EPR2007) for a matter involving the 2 questions as stated in Sect ion 45(2) of the 1991 Constitution as being what is stated in Rule s 89 – 98 as being that 1) under the Originating Notice of Motion - the Notice of Motion is filed accompanied by an affidavit of service . 2) that it o utlines clearly and distinctly t he procedure to be followed from the beginning to the end of the proceeding and the process is relatively shorter straight forward and simple, stressing that you will not get the same under the EPR 2007 which is a very long protracted convoluted & confusing process from start to finish. He argued that after a Presidential candidate has won an election, sworn in and taken office as President, with his enormous functions as detailed in Section 40 of the1991 Constitution, it was certainly a must for any protest against the validity of his election while in office to be devoid of procedures complexities and longish timin g which the EPR2007 process poses and is know n for . This in itself makes the EP R process most inappropriate to invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in such an important matter invoking the rights of voters. He argued further that when the Supreme Court wants applications before it by petition it had always stated so as with the proviso to Section 122 of the Constitution and rule 13 of the Supreme Court Rules but yet silent as to the originating process being specifically by Election Petition Rules. He d eferred to the Case of OPONJO BENJAMIN & OTH ERS V NEC & OTHERS SC 4/2012 UNREPORTED where Hon Justice Valesius Thomas JSC made it clear that the only way you approach the Supreme Court with re spect to 25 | P a g e Section 45(2) of the 1991 Constitution dealing with election petitions challenging the validity of the Presidential Election which is invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is by Originating Notice of Motion. 21.On the issue of grounds 2 & 3 prayed, the 3rd &4th Respondent/applicant’s counsel argued that the consolidated petitions SC6/2018 and SC7/2018 are fundamentally and substantially flawed and defective in that they do not set forth ‘as concisely as possible’ the nature of the reliefs sought by the Petitioners and do not state the following: - a) Capacity in which each petitioner is petitioning; b) The address for service of the petitioner or his her or her counsel; c) The names and addresses of all parties who may be directly affected by the petition as is required by Rule 89 (2) of the Supreme Court Rules 1982; d) And that secondly the documents listed in Petition SC 7/2018 to substantiate their case or allegations contained in the said petition have not been exhibited in the supporting affidavit contrary to Rule 11 of Order 31 of the HCR SI NO 8 OF 2007. 22. In support of this argument he r eferred this court to Exhibit D1 & D2 which are the petitions by Dr. Sylvia Blyden on the one hand as SC 6/2018 and the 3 other petitioners Dr Samura Wilson Kamara and the 2 others as SC 7/2018 respectively. He observed that both petitions are substantially flawed in that they have not been brought under Rule 89 of the Supreme Court Rules 1982 which is the only legal means by which you invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. In addition, this Rule required the Plaintiff/Petitioner to file a statement of case with the Originating Notice of Motion or in any case not later than 10 days from the filing of the Notice of Motion/Originating Notice of Motion. This statement of plaintiff’s case must be such that - a) It sets forth the facts and particulars of the claim, documentary or otherwise verified by affidavit upon which the plaintiff seeks to rely; 26 | P a g e b) It states the names and particulars of the witnesses; if any, which he intends to call at the hearing; and c) The plaintiff makes also a full list of the decided cases on w hich the plaintiff relied. 23. He argued that despite those requirements, looking at SC 6/2018 and SC 7/2018 those petitions did not in any way follow the laid down requirement s and in fact did not contain a precise statement of the claim the petition ers were making nor did they contain a precise statement of the remedy they were seeking and moreso showed no cause of action, hence they should and must be struck out. 24. On ground 1(a) Learned Counsel Mr. Banda-Thomas referred to Rule 12 (1) (2) & (3) and argued that this Rule required the Petitioner to serve the Respondent s/ Applicants with the Election Petition to the person personally and not by any other means whatsoever and that the said service be effected within 5 days of its presentation. Also, where the Respondent has named an Agent or given an address of service that service can be delivered to the Agent of the Respondent or by leaving it at the address of that agent. Alternatively , an application can be made to a Judge for an order for substituted service. He argued that the combined effect of Rules 12 (1), 12(2) &12(3) is that it should be personal service. He referred to Rule10 as to what constitutes personal service and noted that it called for personal delivery to the Respondent and that where this was not practicable you come for substituted service. He embellished his argument by referring to the affidavit of Julius Maada Bi o sworn to on the 12th of January, 2021 in particular paragraph 5 thereof where His Excellency claimed that he was never personally served with Exhibit DI and D2 the Petitions herein from Dr Blyden and Dr Samura Kamara and the 2 others respectively. He also referred to the affidavit of Musa Mewa sworn to on the 2 nd August, 2018 where he exhibited the affidavit of service as exhibit F1&F2 respectively. He argued that from the face of Exhibit F1 & F2 there was no personal service. Also noting Exhibit SOB7 which claimed that one Ramatu Bangura (Sgt 512) received the Petition at State House 27 | P a g e Police Post, he argued that there was no evidence that she was an appointed agent and therefore she had no au thority to receive the Petition, consequent upon same, that so called service never constituted personal service. By the same token he argued the affidavit of Julius Maada Bio showed that he only appointed an agent for service on the 4 th of May, 2018 and t he same is seen by Exhibit A1 & A2 . This conclusively meant that at the time of the purported service he was not personally served as required by law. This he argued holds true for both petitioners. Further he argued, there was no order for substituted ser vice within the time frame or at all as the Supplemental Affidavit of Musa Mewa has forwarded a search receipt exhibited in the Supplemental Affidavit which shows that no such order was made for substituted service as argued by Learned Counsel for Dr Samura Kamara and others. 25. He concluded by noting that the Petitioner had not complied with the m andatory provisions of Order 12 (1), (2) & (3) & ought be struck out. He relied on the John Oponjo Benjamin case where it was held ‘shall’ in those provisions were mandatory. 26. Turning to ground 1 (c) He referred the court to Rule 6 (1) of EPR 2007 and referred the court to paragraph 6 of the affidavit of Musa Mewa sworn to on the 2nd of August, 2018. He also referred to the affidavit of Sylvia Blyden sworn to on the 5th of September, 2018 paragraph 4 thereof and to Exhibit SOB 2 –the notice of Appointment pursuant to Rule 7. He submitted and/or argued th at there was a clear distinction between Rule 6 and 7 noting that while Rule 7 is a notice given by a Member of Parliament or hi s agents and has nothing to deal with notice given by Petitioners agents in the sense that that the Rule provides and requires that on presenting a petition the Petitioner (s) shall leave at the Registry a notice signed by themselves or on their behalf giving the name of a legal practitioner or agent who they authorise as their agent or stating that they act for themselves as the case may be importing that the Notice of Appointment given by Sylvia Blyden Exhibited as SOB2 28 | P a g e was out of place as Sylvia Blyden was not a member of Parl iament and therefore wrong. 27. Referring also to the affidavit in opposition of Mr. Lansana Dumbuya sworn to on the 14th of January, 2021 paragraph 3 thereof, he noted Exhibit LD 2 too was in this form despite the fact the Dr Samara Kamara and the 2 others were not Members of Parliament. He submitted that the knock-on effect of this was that the Petitioners failed, refused and neglected to leave at the Registry on presentation of the Petition a notice signed by the Petitioners on their behalf, the name of the legal practitioner who was authorised to act as agent or that he or she acts for herself. Consequently, they have all four of them failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Rule 6 (1) and consequently the Petition ought to be struck out for lack of compliance. 28. On Rule 14 the provisions were read out and the learned counsel submitted or argued that 2 separate securities were as per the Rules required to be given; the 1st being a deposit of Le 1 m while the 2 nd security is a recognizance entered into by 2 sureties or by the deposit of monies Le 1 million each for the 2 sureties in lieu of recognizance. He noted that only 1 security was provided. On Rule 14 (2) he submitted that while Rule 1 requires or demands that securities be giv en 14(2) describes and defines the kind or form of security to be given. He refe rred this court to Paragraph 4 of the 1 st Petitioner’s Affidavit where she stated that she had fully complied with the requirements of Ru le 14(1) and (2) but yet we see a hand wri tten receipt and a government of Sierra Leone Judicial Sub Treasury Office receipt for only Le1,000,000.00 and nothing more. Mr Banda-Thomas argued further, she never in fact secured recognisance for 2 Sureties neither did she pay the security for the 2 sureties... The same scenario plays itself out concerning the 2 nd, 3 rd and 4th Petitioners/Respondents who can be seen by the affidavit of their solicitor and counsel Lansana Dumbuya in LD 3 to have only paid Le 1 million as deposit with no 29 | P a g e recognizance for 2 sureties or payment of Le1m each for the 2 sureties as is required by Rules 14 (1) & (2). 29. He emphasised that the requirement of Rule 14 (1) & 14 (2) by the use of the word ‘shall’ is a mandatory requirement and he added the word ‘AND’ and that this means it is conjunctive meaning de posit of security for cost for yourself the petitioner and having 2 recognisances or payment of security for cost for the 2 sureties. 30. Similar arguments were posed with respect to ground (e and f) emphasising that the word ‘shall’ used in those provisions were mandatory. Learned counsel referred to the case of ARTHUR AGWUNCHANWANKO & 2 OTHERS V ALHAJI UMARU YARADUA& 40 OTHERS SC279/2007 UNREPORTED @Pg7 where it was held that the word “shall” is mandatory. SUBMISSIONS OF SOLICITOR & COUNSEL FOR DR SAMURA KAMARA & 2 OTHERS THE 2ND 3RD AND 4TH PETITIONERS REPLIES 31. The Solicitor and Counsel for the Dr Samura Kamara & 2 others in his reply to ground 6 argued against the submission that filing a Petition using the EPR 2007 was not the proper way to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for bringing/or instituting an Election Petition pursuant to Section 45 (2) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone and Section 55 (1) of the PEA No. 4 of 2012. He also tried to debunk the submission that Rule 89 of the Supreme Court Rules 1982 using an Originating Notice of Motion supported by an affidavit and filing a plaintiff’s statement of case was the ONLY way any peti tion pursuant to Sect ion 45 (2) of the 1991 constitution and section 55(1) of PEA No 4 of 2012 could be brought to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. 32. He argued that while it could not be in doubt that Rule 89 provided a process of Instituting/invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by Originating 30 | P a g e Notice of Motio n supported by Affidavit, it certainly could not be the only way by which you approach the Supreme Court. He submitted that for Presidential Election Petitions you can come by Election Petition which is also an originating process and the Supreme Court should be at liberty to accept such Petitions when they are instituted via the Election Petition Rules 2007. To do otherwise, he submitted, would be to render provisions such as sections 45(2) & 122 (1) & (3), Section 124, and Section 127 of the 1991 Constitution redundant or inapplicable. 33. Mr. Lansana Dumbuya sought to lay the blame on the Rules of Court Committee when he argued that the body to make Rules of Court is the Rules of Court Committee and where thy have failed to make rules specifically for Presidential Election Petitions that should not deprive the litigants from adopting any appropriate method for approaching the Court. In such a situation, they were right to have come before this court by Election Petition Rules 2007. He argued that even if there is another way of approaching the Supreme Court it w ould be wrong to debar the Petitioner who hav e come by another means when it is such a fundamental right of a voter to challenge the validity of the Election. He made reference to the case of REPUBLIC V HIGH COURT ACCRA EX-PARTE AG (DELTA FOODS CASE) 998-99 SCGLR 595 where the S upreme C ourt of Ghana applying a purposive approach dismissed an application to quash the proceedings in the trial court holding that the failure to name the Attorney -General as defendant in a suit where according to section 88(5) of the constitution he ought to have been so named was not in those circumstances fatal. He argued that where a petitioner had come by any other means than the stated means, it would be of no use for the court to throw the Petitioner out on mere technicality without hearing the case on its merits. 34. He submitted that the correct approach would be for the court to determine whether the litigant had been prejudiced or not ; and so far as he was concerned , the Respondents/ applicants have not shown or been able to establish that they suffered 31 | P a g e prejudice or harm. He therefore refe rred this court to the case of TSATU TSIKATA V ATT. GENERAL NO. 2 2001 -2002 SCGLR PAGE 620 at 647 where again the Supreme Court reversed a decision that a criminal summons issued in the name of the President of Ghana rath er than the Republic as per the Constitution contravened this provision and was therefore a nullity. 35.He concluded by saying that should the court decide the Petitions challenging the validity of the election which brough t his Excellency into Office should have been brought or instituted by Originating Notice of Motion, then he would argue in the alternative that in fact SC/7/2018 fulfilled the requirements to be termed an originating Notice of Motion as he, on behalf of Dr Samura and others, have filed a Statement of case which is one of the requirements with respect to an Originating Notice of Motion. 36. He finally requested that the court should employ a purposive approach in determining the questions before the court. Thus, he ended up by saying where the Constitution h as given a right - a fundamental right to an individual to contest the validity of a n Election that right should not b e taken away from them because they employed the wrong process to bring about the action to enforce those rights. 37.On grounds 1(a),1(c), 1(d) 1(e) and 1(f) which were proffered as grounds for the election petitions SC6 and SC 7 2018 to be struck out , the Solicitor for Dr Samura Kamara & others argued that these Rules cannot be mandatory despite the use of word ‘shall’. On the other hand , he further argued if the argument was that the Petitioners did not comply with the aforesaid Rules, he submitted that it was the court’s duty to serve most of the documents. 38. As regards Rule 14 (2), he observed that the sum of Le 1, 000,000 was deposited and that the same was fulfilled as per the Rules. He submitted further that even if you say 2 other recognisances where necessary this was not mandatory as witnesses are 32 | P a g e unlikely to be called in an election petition case except in special circumstances and specific or particular witnesses may be called at any time. On the issue of Notice of Compliance, he cited his affidavit in opposition paragraph 3 and argued that the same was correctly given as Exhibited as LD 4. 39. With regard to 1(f), he submitted that where service was required, the onus was not placed on the Petitioners but rather the Court. He adopted arguments under 1 (a) & (d) and referred to Exhibit LD 5 the affidavit by Jefferson Williams an officer of the court senior bailiff affirming that he served certain persons at State House. He submitted that Rule 13 must be read in conjunction with Rules 5 (3) & Rules 5 (5) of EPR 2007. He argued that since presentation was done to or in the Master & Registrar’s office, that presupposes that it was the Master and Registrar who was expected to serve and not the Petitioner. 40. Mr. Dumbuya referred to the case of ARTHUR AGWUNCHANWANKO& 2 OTHERS V ALHAJI UMARU YARADUA & 40 OTHERS SC279/2007 UNREPORTED @Pg7 referred to by the Respondent stating that same had no place in the current proceedings as the facts were dif ferent. He submitted that any technicalities as to the Rules 1(a), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e) and 1(f) were defeated by Rule 52 of the EPR2007 and Rule 103 of Supreme Court Rules. 41. He went further to state and arg ue that this application must fail because the application was not made within a reasonable time and eventually made after the Respondents had taken a fresh step in the proceedings. He submitted that the Petition was filed on the 10 th of April, 2018. On the 4 th of May, 2018 the Applicant’s filed a Notice and Memorandum of Appearance to gether with Notice of Appointment of Solicitors and Agent. On the 29 th of May, 2018 the Applicant file a Notice of Motion for the consolidation of the cases. They filed affidavits in support of the application for consolidation which was first heard on the 29TH of May 2018 and on the 18 th of July 33 | P a g e 2018, Judgment/Ruling was delivered. As a result of the above facts, he submitted relying on Order 2 of the High Court Rules pursuant to Rule 98 & 103 of the Supreme Court Rules that the consolidation application of 29th May 2018 constituted fresh Step. 42. On Grounds No. 2 & 3, the counsel for Dr Samura Kamara & 2 others argued that the petition filed showed cause of action and claimed certain reliefs. He stated that when the Respondent drew attention to the Affidavit of the Petition’s case paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 he was looking at the p etitioners’ case and in addition he had filed a statement of case. That apart, they have requested for 4 reliefs. Thus, he concluded the petition was properly before the court and should not be struck out but rather heard on its merit. 43. He finally concluded by pleading with the court not to throw out the Petition as in his view amendments could be made to rectifying any non-compliance with the Rules in the interest of justice so as no t to sacrifice justice in altar of strict technicalities or such. SUBMISSIONS BY DR SLYVIA O. BLYDEN AS 1STPETITIONER IN PERSON 44. The 1st Petitioner who was appearing in person observed that she had made this petition as a citizen who has a right to bring such a petition. In her submissions s he relied heavily on paragraph 9 of her affidavit in opposition sworn to on the 5 th of September, 2018 and argued that that none of the affidavits filed in support of the Applicants to strike out the petition attempted to debunk that paragraph such that the information therein was unchallenged, undisputed and uncontroverted-to wit that His Excellency the President entered Appearance on the 17 th April 2018 as gleaned from Exhibit SOB9 and so too t he SLPP the 4 th Respondent as per Exhibit SOB 10 was actually served with the Petition. She submitted also while the Respondents/Applicants have applied and attempted to throw out her Petition on several g rounds as listed in grounds 1(a), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e) and 1(f) for failing to comply with Rules 6, 12, 14 and 13 34 | P a g e of EPR2007, i t was her firm conviction that the Election Petition Rules had no mandatory a pplication on a petition brought to the Supreme Court in respect of Presidential Elections. She sought to buttress the submission and belief by holding that a Presidential Elections Petition was radically different from Parliamentary Elections, an expression which she adopted from the Ruling of Justice Browne -Marke when consolidating both Petitions on the 18th of July, 2018. She observed or noted that while no mention of petition is made in the Constitution except with respect to the Chief Justice’s removal, the President’s removal and with respect to the proviso to 122 where any person may petition the Presid ent on some questions and the President in turn requests the opinion of the Supreme Court on the iss ue, Section 45(2) of the 1991 Constitution was very clear as to the fact that you can and must approach the Supreme Court alone when it comes to the issue o f questioning the validity of the Election of the President. 45. She referred to the John Oponjo Benjamin case and submitted that while that Judgment made copious referenc e to the EPR 2007, it never in fact ca me out to state categorically that it was a result of failure or noncompliance with any of those rules of the EPR 2007 that the Elections Petition of Oponjo Benjamin was thrown out. Instead, what she said she understood to be mandatory was the m andatory requirement of Section 55 (1) of Public Elections Act No. 4 of 2012 that all petitions be filed before the Supreme Court not later than 7 days from the declaration of results and that was exactly what she had done by the filing of SC 6/ 2018 which has now been consolidated with SC7 /2018. 46. She pondered that since the Supreme Court has not bo und itself with EPR 2007 then what Rules are applicable , as there were no Rules for Presidential E lections PETITION, also trying to lay the blame on the Rules of Court Committee. She then charged the Supreme Court to g ive directions as to what Rules are applicable in the circumstances or direct the Rules of Committee to make Rules for Presidential 35 | P a g e Elections petitions or challenge . Dr Olayinka Bl yden argued that should the Court decide otherwise, that those Rules of EPR2007 were applicable, she in the alternative would adopt the argument of learned counsel Mr Lansana Dumbuya that those rules are not mandatory and that non -compliance should not inv alidate or nullify the proceedings. In any case, however, she argued that because Rule 6(1) had a Rule 6(2) which was an option any purported mandatory value of Rule 6(1) was nullified and it was on the onus of Master & Registrar under Rule 6(2) to put out that notice. 47. On Ground 2-Dr Blyden adopted the argument of Learned Counsel Mr Lansana Dumbuya. She further referred to paragraph 14 of her affidavit in opposition sworn to on the 5th of September, 2018 which was in answer to paragraph 12 of the affidavit of Musa Mewa sworn to on the 2nd August, 2018, noting and arguing that she had stated quite concisely all the reliefs she had prayed for. 48. On Ground 3 for wanting her Petition SC 6/2018 to be struck out the 1st Petitioner made use of the definition of what a cause of action is, to wit, a fact or series of facts that enables one to bring an action against another. Relying on Cambridge’s dictionary she also defined cause of action as an acceptable reason for taking legal acti on. She went on further to state that a suit or action may have several causes of action or just one cause of action. She relied on the case of SC/2/2005 CHIEF HINGA NORMAN V SOLOMON BEREWA UNREPORTED as in her opinion, having several causes of action. She however opined that in the Petition SC 6/2018 which she has brought her case has one cause of action and the same could be evinced or evidenced by the facts as deposed in her parag raphs 10, 11, 12, 13 & 15 of her affidavit in opposition sworn to on the 5th of September, 2018 and that she particularly relied on paragraph 13 of same which stated that the parties have not yet reached the required stage to exchange exhibits as per Rule 35 of the EPR2007. 36 | P a g e 49.Dr Blyden also reiterating her position on ground 2 prayed by the applicants stated that contrary to the submission by the counsel for the Applicant that the nature of her reliefs have not been concisely stated argued that she had proffered a number of reliefs and that those reliefs were not reliefs which the court could not grant. It was therefore wrong to state that she h as not requested for any relief . She observed that her 4 th and 5th reliefs prayed for were those reliefs specifically mandated under the 1991 Constitution by virtue of Sections 54(6) and (7) of the aforesaid constitution and what the 1991 Constitution states with respect to the subsequent removal o f the P resident which were not Section 51 removals. 50. On the EPR 2007 being the wrong originat ing process as claimed by counsel for His Excellency the President and the SLPP, she submitted that she petitioned challenging the validity of the Election of Brigadier Rtd. Julius Maada Bio as President because of the PEA No 4 of 20 12 which provided that you can p etition against the validity of the Presidential Elections. That was exactly what she had done and thus could not say whether her so called petition was linked with enforcement of the 1991 Constitution, or at all. 51. In her closing ar guments she stated and I quote ‘My Lords the requirements of FORM 8 under Rule 89 of the Supreme Court Rules 1982 would be found in her petition and its attachments as filed. Every information is there and I am asking this court to adopt argument of Mr Lansana Dumbuya that Election Petitions are Sui Generis. This last ground therefore fails.’ SUBMISSIONS BY THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS 52. Solicitor and Counsel, Mr Emmanuel Saffa Abdulai for the 1st and 2nd Respondents at this juncture decided to concur with the 3 rd And 4 th Respondents/Applicants submissions. The Court granted leave to the Petition er in person to rep ly. She noted the submissions and was granted leave by the court to send in any written submissions 37 | P a g e or authority as may be appropriate. Counsel for Dr. Samura Kamara and the 2 others adopted the same. To my writing of this Ruling, I am not aware that we received any further written submissions. CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES 53. The above application and arguments relating thereto as detailed above raise a number of is sues for consideration by this H onourable Court. In the application of 3rd August 2018 before us several grounds were raised why the Consolidated Petitions SC Case No 6 and 7/ 2018 ought to be struck out. Before delving into and giving apt consideration to any of those grounds I think it is pertinent to address the issue of the alleged unreasonableness of the Application to strike out the petitions and the allegation that the Respondents/Applicants took a fresh step by th e filing of an application for C onsolidation of Petitions, belatedly raised by learned counsel for Dr Samura Kamara & Others. An issue of such needs addressing now as a declaration/ order that the Application by the Respondents/ Applicants was not made within reasonable time and/or the consolidation of petitions is a fresh step would almost certainly mean that the application of 3rd August 2018 ought not to be allowed. 54. To this end, it is pertinent to note that o n the 29th of May 2018, Solicitors for HE the President and the SLPP applied to this Honourable court for the consolidation of petitions hitherto filed separately as SC6/2018 by Dr Sylvia Blyden and Dr Samura Kamara and 2 others as SC7/ 2018. The Order for the matters to be consolidated into one matter SC Case No 6 and 7/ 2018 was granted by this Honourable Court by a panel of 3 J ustices viz, Hon Justice Nicholas C Browne -Marke, Hon Justice Emmanuel E. Roberts and Hon Justice Glenna Thompsons JJSC with Justice Browne -Marke presiding, on the 18th of July, 2018 and it was not until the 3rd of August 2018 that the application to strike out the Consolidated petitions on the several grounds herein presented, was made. As a result of same, counsel for Dr Samura Kamara and 2 others in his final closing arguments , claimed that the App lication was not made within a 38 | P a g e reasonable time an d that the filing of the application for consolidation constituted a fresh step. 55. Without intending to make a short shrift of this issue it needs be emphatically pointed out that it was less than 3 weeks after the opportunity presented itself, after the consolidation, (the consolidation itself not being regarded as a fresh step ) that the application by the HE the President and the SLPP , the 3rd and 4 th Respondents/ Applicants herein, was made. This, by all intents and purposes, was within a reasonable time and not an unreasonable time as deposed to in paragraph 7 of the affidavit in opposition of Lansana Dumbuya sworn to on the 14th of January 2021. This cannot by any stretch of imagination be an unreasonable time for making t his application. See the case of REYNOLDS V COLDMAN (1887) 36 CH.D 453 CA where it was held too late after a year to set aside service out of the jurisdiction. See also PONTIN V WOOD (1962) 1QB 594 where it was held too late after 4 months to apply to set aside service of a writ claiming damages for injuries suffered. 56.Turning to the issue of the fresh step allegation, a fresh step could be defined as a step in the proceeding s which is only necessary or only useful if you intend defending against the action/ proceedings or only necessary if you intend waiving any objection to the proceedings or have already waived the objection in the proceedings such that by you taking that step or procedure e.g. filing an application or affidavit in opposition you would have waived the irregularity or any intention of objecting to the irregularities in the proceedings at hand. The Applicants applied for consolidation but the application was not only useful or necessary to defend the action. It was necessary first and foremost to bring issues together on one front so as to manage the proceedings rather than having a multiplicity of cases with perhaps different panels on the same issue . It had nothing to deal with defending the action on merits as the Application to consolidate the petitions did not deal with any of the irregularities the 39 | P a g e Applicants wanted to raise and eventually raised with this their eventual application which were only raised after consolidation. 57. It is pertinent to note that it was the Solicitor for Dr Samura Kamara and others , Mr Lansana Dumbuya whose affidavit in opposition raise d the issue of the unreasonableness of the timing of the Application, but it never raised the issue of fresh step, so it is improper for him to be raising this now. Fresh step is inapplicable by the sets of facts relating to the consolidation which Mr Lansana Dumbuya has considered as fresh step. In the case of HUNT V WORSFOLD (1896) 2CH.D 224 it was held there would be no waiver of your opportunity to bring out the irregularities where the step or procedure taken was reasonably necessary for other purpose. In the case before us, it is crystal clear that the consolidation was necessary for other purposes other than defending the action . See also IN RE DULLES SETTLE MENT (1951) Ch.842 CA where the step was taken for another reason other than defending the action, to wit, taken to assert an objection and not to defend the action. I n the current case the consolidation was taken to assert an objection after proper and easy case management had been addressed through the Applicat ion and approval granted b y the Supreme Court on 18th July 2018. 58. Against the foregoing, the submission of Mr Lansana Dumbuya that the Application by the 3 & 4th Applicants of 3rd August 2018 for striking out the petitions on the ground that the application was not made within a reasonable time and that the Application for consolidation dated 29th May 2018 constitutes fresh step, fails. 59. Having clarified this issue it brings us to the Application to strike out both proceedings on several grounds . In this connection there is ground 6 which is the primary ground, ground 2&3 in the alternative and ground 1(a), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e) and1(f) further in the alternative. These grounds will be handled seriatim starting with ground 1(a). Under Ground 1 (a), the 3 rd & 4 th Respondents/Applicants claim that the 40 | P a g e Petitioners did not serve the Election P etitions SC 6/2018 and SC 7/2018 personally on the 3rd and 4th Respondents/Applicants within five days of the presentation of their Election Petitions contrary to the Election Petition Rules EPR2007 Rules 12 (1) and 12(3) nor did the Petitioners and agents deliver same to an appointed agent of the 3rd and 4th Respondents/Applicants as required by Rule 12(2) of the EPR2007. Our findings are clear that the Petitioners did breach Rules 12 (1) (2) and (3) of the Election Petition Rules 2007 in that the Petitioners failed refused or neglected to personally serve on the 3 rd and 4th Respondents /Applicants within 5 days of the pres entation of the petitions. The Petitioners, especially the 1st Petitioner, has made a he avy weather of the fact that she did serve by showing Exhibits SOB 9 and SOB10. These do not in any way prove and constitute personal service . They showed solicitors for the 4th Respondent even before their Appointment as agent out of abundance of caution entering appearance without really been personally served any petition. 60.Turning to ground 1( c) which stated that the petitioners/respondents failed to comply with Rule 6 (1) of the Election Petition Rules 2007 in that they failed to leave at the Registry a notice signed by them or on their behalf, giving the name of the legal practitioner who had the authority to act as their agent or stating that the petitioner acts for himself or herself, the same could be gleaned from our findings, to wit, that they failed to leave at the registry a notice signed by them or on their behalf giving the name of a legal practitioner who had the authority to act as their agent or stating that the petitioner acts for himself or herself. What was done in both petitions was that in each petition both petitioners filed a Notice pursuant to Rule 7 of the EPR2007 rather than Rule 6 and the requirement of Rule 7 was not only completely different from Rule 6 but had no bearing on the current state of things as none of the petitioners were MPs. 61. With reference to ground 1( d) the argument of the R espondents/Applicants was that the petitioners severally breached Rule 14 (2) as they failed to give security in the form of, firstly, a deposit in the sum of Le1, 000,000.00 and secondly, by recognisance of the same amount entered into by 2 sureties or by payment of deposit of money in