By Jane B. Mansaray……………………………….
Counsels in the main opposition Sierra Leone Peoples Party (SLPP) Appeals Court matter yesterday made their final additional oral summary submissions in the synopsis served in relation to the matter.
Giving a background fact of the matter set out in plaintiff counsel’s synopsis, Lawyer Sulaiman Banja Tejan-Sie highlighted six points to support his legal arguments in relation to a petition matter filed in by three supporters of the SLPP against the said party executive challenging thirty nine constituencies out of one hundred and twelve constancies in lower level elections conducted by the party and at the same time challenging the judgment delivered at the lower court by Justice Babatunde Edwards.
He said the grounds on the party Constitution and the issue of violation and inconsistencies in connection to the matter relied on the affidavit of the first defendant applicant, Chief Somano Kapen and the amended rules and regulations which he said led to objections from some party members and in turn prevented it of coming into force by virtue of Section 26 of the PPRC Act 2002.
Lawyer Tejan-Sie further submitted that the judgment delivered at the lower court is against the weight of the evidence adduced in support of the plaintiff case.
Mr. Tejan-Sie further submitted that considering the issue in the court, the trial judge failed to adequately consider the SLPP Constitution of 2005 regarding the conduct of the party’s lower level election.
Counsel sighted Section 4e and 4f of Sub Section 5 and 7 of the 1995 SLPP amended constitution and went on to submit that the published rules and regulations contravene key clauses of the said party constitution in dealing with lower level elections of the party in 112 constituencies.
Responding to counsel’s submissions, counsel for the respondents, Lawyer Umaru Napoleon Koroma said he relied on the synopsis of the matter he presented to the court.
In his submission, Lawyer Napoloen Koroma said that the elections were conducted in accordance with the gazetted rules and regulations and not the proposed objected rules and regulations.
Mr. Koroma in his submission went on to admit to the fact that there were indeed objections raised but the other side failed to produce any evidence.
He went on to deny that it was incorrect that the PPRC set up a ten man committee or received any of the rules and regulations which the other side is claiming. This, according to defense counsel, the plaintiff is wrong in that direction.
Mr. Koroma supported his submission pursuant to Section 24 sub Section 2a of the PPRC Act No.3 of 2002.
Additional fresh documents submitted by the plaintiff counsel were objected to by counsel on the other side, but according to the three Appeal Court Judges that will be determined later.
The matter was adjourned on notice.