|
Momodou
Denmark
11681 Posts |
 Posted - 13 Feb 2008 : 21:41:40
|
Supreme Court Dismisses The UDP/ NRP Application for Review
A panel of five judges of the Supreme Court, on Tuesday, 12 February, dismissed the motion filed by the opposition United Democratic Party (UDP), National Reconciliation Party (NRP) and the minority leader of the National Assembly, Momodou K. Sanneh, seeking for review of Chief Justice Abdou karim Savage’s ruling.
It could be recalled that the above mentioned parties had earlier filed a suit against the Attorney General and the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), before Chief Justice Savage, sitting as a sole judge of the Supreme Court.
They were then seeking for a declaration that the recent amendment to the constitution, “runs contrary to the spirit and intendment” of section 193 (1) of the constitution; that the Bill entitled the Local government (Amendment) Act 2007, “is null, void and of no effect.” They had also sought for an injunction restraining the IEC from conducting the Local Government elections on this amended Act.
But the Attorney General had filed a preliminary objection, arguing among other things that the parties concerned lacked locus standi to bring the suit, saying they are subsumed in NADD.
The counsel for the IEC, Mrs Amie Joof-Conteh, also filed a preliminary objection before Savage, stressing that there was no cause of action disclosed against the client (IEC).
After hearing all the parties in the legal battle, Chief Justice Savage on Wednesday, 16 January 2008, upheld Attorney General Mrs. Marie Saine-Firdaus’ argument that the UDP and NRP are still part of the opposition NADD party; and did not therefore have the legal capacity to file the suit.
However, the plaintiff having been aggrieved by this decision, filed a motion for review before a bench of five judges of the Supreme Court, namely Mrs. Mambilima; Mr. Gibou Semega Janneh; Mr. Niki Tobi, Mr. Chief Akomaye Agim; and Mr. Jones Doste.
But the 1st respondent (Attorney General), represented by the Director of Public Prosecution, Mr. Emmanuel Fagbenle, filed a preliminary objection to the application for review of Savage’s ruling. After the legal arguments by the DPP and the counsel for the applicants, lawyer Ousainou Darboe, the panel delivered its ruling on the earlier mentioned date.
Reading the ruling on behalf of the panel, Justice Doste from Ghana, said Fagbenle had argued that the motion as constituted, was incompetent; and that the panel lacks jurisdiction to review the ruling of a single judge of the Supreme Court.
Doste recalled Lawyer Darboe saying that what was before the court was not interlocutory but a final order. He said Darboe had also submitted a fresh application which was not possible under the proviso of section 125, as argued by Fagbenle.
Justice Doste further said Fagbenle had argued that it is the nature of the application before the court that determines whether its an interlocutory matter or not.
The judge then cited section 125(2) of the constitution which states: (2)”The Supreme Court shall be constituted by an uneven number of not less than five judges of the court.”
‘Provided a single judge of the court may exercise the powers of the court in any interlocutory matter, which may be subject to a fresh application to a bench of five judges of the court.’ Doste, on behalf of his colleagues, invoked section 8(2) of the Supreme Court Act, which requires that the application to be reviewed could only be heard by the Supreme Court constituted by “not less” than seven judges.
He said the objection raised by Fagbenle is therefore sustained, stressing that the application for review could not be heard by them. The judges thus dismissed the UDP, NRP and minority leader’s suit.
However, the panel held that since it is a constitutional matter, the duty of the court is to ensure that the applicants have an opportunity to be heard by a court properly constituted. So they were granted the liberty to file a fresh application.
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issues
Issue No. 19/2008, 13 -14 February 2008
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2008 : 22:36:50
|
'He said the objection raised by Fagbenle is therefore sustained, stressing that the application for review could not be heard by them. The judges thus dismissed the UDP, NRP and minority leader’s suit.' Foroyaa
The above is not accurate. It wasn't the suit that was dismissed but the contention that it could be heard by five judges. The case is still in court but that few technical amendments have to be made to enable a panel of seven judges to hear it. The court have given plantiffs 14days to go back to court with substantially the same suit. You don't get called back if your suit is dismissed. You only have to appeal if you want to return to court.
Thanks
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
 |
|
Topic Locked
