By Jane B. Mansaray.
The Supreme Court of Sierra Leone on Friday, 3rd September 2021 delivered judgment on the dual citizenship matter brought by one David Fornah of the APC against the Honorable Member of Parliament, Dr. Kandeh Kolleh Yumkella (KKY) of Constituency 062 Kambia District, Samu Chiefdom
The landmark judgment in favour of the defeated 2018 Presidential candidate of the National Grand Coalition (NGC), commonly referred to as KKY was delivered by Justice Nicolas Browne-Marke and four other Judges of the Supreme Court in Freetown.
Dr. Yumkella was dragged to court by David Fornah who challenged the legitimacy of the former UNIDO boss sitting as a Parliamentarian, citing that he (KKY) was a holder of dual citizenship.
The Parliamentarian denied the allegations, and filed in an affidavit with several exhibits to the court.
Dr. Kandeh is said to have become a United States citizen sometime in 1995, 22 years to the day he made his denunciation.
In their judgment, the Judges said that Dr. Yumkella had included copies of his renunciation of American citizenship and Sierra Leonean passport in his affidavit.
The said renunciation certificate stated that the NGC Parliamentary Leader denounced his American citizenship on the 22nd November 2017 at the United States Embassy, South Ridge in the Western Area Rural District in Freetown.
The Supreme Court also noted that Dr. Yumkella at an organised event in January 2018 made his renunciation public and that a transcription of his speech on the said date was made available to the court.
In the said transcription, Dr. Yumkella said that he made his renunciation in compliance with Section 76(1) of the 1991 National Constitution of Sierra Leone.
Justice Eku Roberts said Dr. Yumkella has provided enough evidence of his renunciation, that deemed him fit to contest for the positions of President and Member of Parliament.
The affidavit of the plaintiff, David Fornah had sought the leave of the Supreme Court to interpret certain Sections in the 1991 Constitution and the Citizenship Act of 2006.
The question that begged an answer was to ascertain, who was a citizen of Sierra Leone and how does one denounce his citizenship?
Fornah had also raised objection in his affidavit served to the court, citing Section 47 sub-section 3 of the Public Elections Act of 2012 which states that any objection against a Presidential candidate shall be investigated by the Supreme Court after filing within a period of 30 days.
However, the plaintiff (Fornah), according to the Judges, opted to withdraw his application from the court, citing that he was now certain that Dr. Yumkella was not a dual citizen.
Justice Glenna Thompson stated that Fornah had wasted the court’s time. She also found the action by Fornah to be ‘frivolous’ and `unhealthy’ for Sierra Leone’s democracy.
She noted that the plaintiff had no intention for the court to interpret the said laws. She admonished that the court should not be used as a political weapon and that an independent Judiciary is important in a democracy.
Justice Alusine Sesay said that Section 127 (2) gives the Supreme Court the necessary power to interpret statutes in Sierra Leone. He also criticized the action made by Fornah to be an ‘unacceptable conduct’ that undermines democracy.’ He said the plaintiff was aware of the status of Dr. Yumkella before 2018.
Justice Sengu Koroma also stressed on the detrimental nature of Fornah’s action. He said that the plaintiff opted to withdraw his action after all defendants had made the paperwork before the proceeding. He added that Fornah’s interpretation of Section 11 of the Citizenship Act of 2006 was an ‘academic one”. He maintained that Section 41 of 1991 Constitution needs no further interpretation.
The court, after ruling in favour of Dr. Yumkella, also agreed that Fornah should pay the cost of the application of the said matter.
