BYTHOMAS DIXON
232NEWS, FREETOWN
The Right to Access Information Commission (RAIC) have been asked by prominent Legal Luminary Augustine S Marrah to review the decision of the Electoral Commission of Sierra Leone (ECSL) for refusing to answer to request for information regarding certified and verified districts level results of the Presidential, local and general elections held on the 24 June 2023. Below is the letter:
Augustine Sorie-Sengbe Marrah Esq.
LLB. (Hons); LLM (HRDA—Pretoria); BL.
2nd floor, 35 Jones Street, Freetown.
Tel: 076497991 Email: bigsoe@gmail.com
22nd August 2023
The Commissioner
Right to Access Information Commission
46 Kroo Town Road
Freetown.
Dear Sir,
RE: APPLICATION TO REVIEW THE DECISION OF ECSL REFUSING TO ANSWER TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING CERTIFIED & VERIFIED DISTRICT LEVEL RESULTS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL, LOCAL AND GENERAL ELECTIONS HELD ON 24TH JUNE 2023
By a letter dated 28th July 2023, I requested pursuant to Section 2(1) of the Right to Access Information Act 2013 information from the Electoral Commission of Sierra Leone, through its chairperson, on whether the Electoral Commission Sierra Leone (ECSL) has in its custody and/or possession all sixteen districts’ certified summary results by the respective District Returning Officers pursuant to Section 92(1) of the Public Elections Act 2022 for the presidential, parliamentary, and local council elections held on 24th June 2023. I also requested information on whether the said district certified summary results were verified by counting agents (political parties’ agents) and/or made available to counting agents and observers present at the respective offices of the District Returning Officers pursuant to Section 92(2) of the Public Elections Act 2022. The said letter was copied your Commission since it is mandated by law (the Right to Access Information Act 2013) to monitor and report on the compliance by public authorities with their obligations under the Right to Access Information law.
By Section 4 of the Right to Access information Act 2013, ECSL had a maximum period of fifteen (15) days to respond to my request. However, as at 18th instant when the 15 days elapsed, I had not received (even until now) any response or answer from ECSL. Naturally, such non-response from ECSL is construed as a refusal to answer to my request for information as outlined above. Consequently, I apply pursuant to Section 43 of the Right to Access Information Act 2013 for your Commission’s review of the decision of ECSL in refusing or omitting to indicate whether or not it holds the said information I requested in my letter of 28th July 2023 and/or refusing or omitting to provide access to the same.
I look forward to your review of the said decision of ECSL within the timeframe provided by law.
Yours faithfully,
Augustine S. Marrah Esq.
CC: The Executive Secretary, ECSL
