By Amin Kef Sesay
Justice Adrian Fisher on Wednesday 1st December ruled that the Secretary General of the All People’s Congress party, Ambassador Foday Yansaneh, did not commit contempt of court in the process leading to the holding of the party’s Emergency National Delegates’ Conference in Makeni City that adopted the new party constitution.
However, he ordered that the Party should pay a fine of Le50 million for contempt of the court’s order to deal with the issue of membership.
It can be recalled that immediately after that Emergency National Delegates’ Conference convened by the APC party this year, a Senior Executive member of the party, Alfred Peter Conteh, through his legal counsel filed a petition to the Freetown High Court against the APC National Chairman and Leader, erstwhile President Dr. Ernest Bai Koroma and the National Secretary General, Ambassador Alhaji Dr. Osman Foday Yansaneh for contempt of court.
In his Notice of Motion, Alfred Peter Conteh notified the court that the party did not follow due processes intended for the adoption of its new constitution because some people who were disenfranchised did not participate in the electioneering process which, according to him, was in breach with the August 11, 2021 court orders.
The complainant also protested that some members that should have served as mere observers in the deliberations leading to the adoption of the new constitution ended officiating the entire process and, according to him, the party has therefore flouted most of the directives of the court orders from the onset.
In the same judgment, Justice Fisher ruled in the matter of Sylvia Blyden that her petition was in place and that the court will entertain it, even though Counsel for Alfred Peter Conteh had told the court that both matters should not be heard co-jointly.
He ordered APC to within 14 days of his ruling to resolve the party’s membership issue, noting that membership is the lifeblood of the party.
He also observed that the party made no attempt to rerun elections in seven constituencies which he said must be done before the party’s National Delegates’ Conference.
It must be noted that in his ruling, Justice Adrian Fisher mentioned the application made by Dr Sylvia Blyden to be added as a party in the matter was not appropriate. He said: “Having conducted a thorough analysis of both cases, there seems to be little difference in substance between the case presented by the plaintiff and that presented by Dr Blyden. They both raise issues of illegality and undemocratic practices within the APC party, of which both of them are members.
He said whilst the plaintiff (Peter Conteh), simply challenges the legal status of some Executive members of the party, Dr Blyden challenges the same legal status of Executive members but provides an in-depth analysis of the said undemocratic practices within the party
Justice Adrian Fisher stated:
“In the circumstances, I am satisfied that on the available evidence before me and having regard to the issues raised by Dr Blyden in her application, her presence is not necessary in this litigation for the purpose of determining the issues in this case.
Her presence would merely lengthen the proceedings and would have the effect of re-litigating issues which have already been recognized by the defendants.
Steps have been taken to regularize the position by the adoption of a new democratic constitution.
As Dr Blyden herself recognized, she has a desire to have these matters resolved as quickly as possible, in the interest of democracy. All parties are equally of the same view that these matters need to be resolved very quickly.”
He concluded that Dr Blyden as a party to these proceedings would be inimical to the speedy progress required and expressed by all parties in submissions.
Dr. Blyden had also wanted the defendants to produce what she refers to as a legitimate constitution of 5th October 1991. However, Justice Fisher raised the issue with Dr Blyden during the course of arguments and pointed out to her that the issue of a 1991 Constitution of the APC party had never been litigated in any of the courts in Sierra Leone, from the Supreme Court downwards and all the relevant authorities show that the only constitution that has been involved in litigation over the years has been the 1995 constitution.
He said the difficulty she has with that approach, is the fact that she has adduced no evidence to show that the 5th October 1991 Constitution she refers to was never formally adopted in accordance with any party constitution or relevant law, in force at the material time.
Justice Adrian Fisher stated that in the light of those facts, the court cannot grant an order requiring the defendants to produce a 1991 constitution, which has never been litigated in any court, particularly so as his court has ordered the defendants to adopt a new constitution at a court ordered emergency national delegates conference.
He said had Dr Blyden applied to this court prior to the orders of the court on the 19th April 2021, for the order she was seeking then the court would have been inclined to grant such an order but said it is now too late in the day to seek such an order.
