By Sahr Ibrahim Komba
FREETOWN, March 03, (232News) – George Banda Thomas Esq, a leading defense counsel for second, third and fourth defendants made his submission before Chief Justice Desmond Babatunde Edwards and others by pleading to the court to caution Dr. Sylvia Blyden.
He went on to say that his clients are not happy about what is being said or done in court and that they clients have expressed concerns about that.
He further said that Dr. Blyden announced in an open court her presidential ambition backed up by an “outrageous, scandalous and obscene affidavit an affidavit which she did not even use in court.”
He added that Dr. Blyden accused or made certain assertions directed at the 4th defendant as a party, the presidential candidate for that party in 2012 who is now the president and other prominent personalities who have make their marks in the law profession.
Banda Thomas also submitted that Dr. Blyden caused a publication in the Awareness Times newspaper and use the name of his client the third defendant applicant under a sensational headline/caption in a demeaning manner which Dr. Blyden objected.
“I will be remised in my duty to my clients who have expressed concerns to me about those remarks and I will also be remise if I turn a blind eye to such remarks,” Lawyer Banda Thomas maintained.
Lawyer Thomas then continued his submission from the amended ground and then proceed to the alternative grounds.
He however submitted that the statutory rules have been observed and applied by the courts of this land that is; the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court for several years.
He went further to say that John Benjamin’s case which was the Supreme Court rule was a ruling coming from the highest court of the land.
John Benjamin’s case did not rule on contravention on this election petition rule and he referred the court to the case itself.
He further submitted that that the application before this court was for election petition filed to be struck off on various grounds including but not limited to rule 6 (1), rule 12 (1) and (2), rule 14 (1) and (2) and rule 13.
He also added that the ruling in that matter was that the petitioners failed to comply with several election petition rules and the petition was struck out, noting that that those rules are mandatory and not permissive or directory.
He also argued that the combine effects of rule 12 and 13 of the election petition rule is to impose a mandatory obligation on the petitioners to serve the petition notice and on time.
The rule does not give the registrar notice filing to serve and a compliance with rule 14 which can only be done by the petitioners and the petitioners should know about compliance.
He also submitted that when the rules want the registrar to serve, the rule expresses so.
He further disagreed with the petitioners that it the court on its motion should ordered a substituted service and he referred to the court to rule 12 (3).
He also said that rule 14 (1) and (2), and rule 6 of the election petition create mandatory obligation. He added that the case of John Benjamin was struck out on contravention of rule 14 (1) and (2) and rule 6 (1).
He further added that if the petitioners knew their application was not made within a reasonable time, they should have raised a preliminary objection but they did not.
He also said that there has been a delay on the side of 3 and 4 defendant applicant in bringing the application.
He went on to say that the petition before the court were filed in April 2018.An application consolidation came before the court in the same year and the order of consolidation was granted on the 3rd August 2018 and this application was filed immediately thereafter.
He said that the delay in hearing that matter cannot be attributed to the defendant applicants.
He continued that each of the petition does not set forth the facts and particular documentary or otherwise upon which each of the petitioners wish to rely.
He added that the affidavit which each of the petitioners filed in support of the petition are fundamentally fraud.
“The petitioners are in court to challenge the validity of the election of the 3rd defendant applicant as President of Sierra Leone under section 45 (2) of Act No 6 1991,” he maintained. He concluded by saying that there is no petition before the court with facts and particulars of what the petitioners want to rely on and there is no verifying affidavit in support of the petition and each of the petition does not disclose a cause of action.
Matter adjourned to the 2nd March 2021.
