By Jane B. Mansaray.
The National Electoral Commission (NEC) at the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone confirmed yesterday they lost the sum of two Million United States Dollars due to a High Court injunction ordered by Justice Abdul Raman Mansaray that put on hold the March 27th run- off Presidential election.
This was raised by one of NEC Lawyers, D.C. Taylor before the three Supreme Court Judges including Justice Nicholas Browne-Marke, Justice Glenna Thulla Thompson and Eku Roberts on a judicial review of the matter filed by (NEC) challenging the preliminary objection raised on the 21st March 2018 regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court Judge and the judgment orders that was delivered on the 26th March 2018 in relation to an originating notice of motion matter filed by Ibrahim Sorie Koroma, a practicing Lawyer in Sierra Leone against (NEC) raising some discrepancies in the 7th March, 2018 general elections.
It will be recalled in March 2018 the plaintiff Lawyer Ibrahim Sorie Koroma through his Counsel Lawyer Lansana Dumbuya came to the High Court seeking for several orders including an injunction and a forensic audit against the defendant (NEC) in the conduct of the March 7th general elections outcome.
Lawyer D.C. Taylor was yesterday at the Supreme Court on an amended application by way of an originating notice dated the 28th March 2018 challenging the outcome of the previous High Court matter.
In his submissions at the Supreme Court, Lawyer Taylor submitted that the outcome of the High Court orders is unreasonable and outweighs the powers of the Judiciary, which created a big financial loss to NEC electioneering process that is not refundable.
He submitted that the High Court Judge failed to look into NEC objection but went on contravening section (45) (2a) and (124) of the 1991 national constitution of Sierra Leone and rule 98 of the Supreme Court rule 1982.
Lawyer D.C. Taylor asked the Court to declare the High Court orders null and void and quash out the orders in favor of NEC.
In reply to the matter at the Supreme Court, Lawyer L. Dumbuya said that though the previous matter was not argued at the High Court, he expressed satisfaction over the High Court orders that went in favour of his client.
Counsel’s response was frowned at by the Supreme Court Judges as the High Court Judge ought to know the implications of the injunction especially when it had to do with a presidential run- off election and not a general election, particularly when the plaintiff in the High Court matter is a private citizen and not a contender in the Presidential election.
Justice Browne-Marke said that the basis in which the injunction was granted was not clear as both the Judge and plaintiff Counsel failed to consider the enormity of their action.
The matter was adjourned on notice.