High Court Ruling to Determine Destiny of Petitioned MPs
Justice Momoh Jah Stevens recently told High Court in Freetown that his ruling would determine as to either the MPs would continue to be in Parliament or not and strongly promised to expedite or speed up trials of petitioned matters and hand down judgment.
Justice Stevens was talking to lawyers representing Hon. John Santigie Kargbo of Constituency 111, Hon. Mohamed Sheriff, Raham Koker of Constituency 131 and Hon. Kemokoh Conteh of Constituency 108 that he would inform them on the date for ruling.
In addition, the petitioners comprised Rev. Horace Vincent, Osman Jalloh and Ahmed Joseph Kanu.
Lawyer I. Kanu who represented two of the petitioners told the presiding judge that in the previous hearing, there was a court order that compelled all parties to file an affidavit but lawyers on the other side disobeyed the said order.
Lawyer DT Taylor argued that they have chosen not to file an affidavit adding that the court should give them opportunity to make submissions in law. At this juncture DT Taylor submitted the honorable court grant them to be heard on commissions of law and mentioned that denying them the opportunity to argue orally would mean an unfairness to them. He submitted that the 2, 3 and 4th respondent be allowed to make their submission before the court.
One of the respondents, lawyer Brima Koroma told the court that they wanted to make oral submission in opposition to the affidavit of the first respondent. Lawyer Koroma further submitted that they would bring in case law authorities and stated that apart from the affidavit, election petition should hear to strict laws and rules.
Lawyer Ade Macauley representing Honorable Kemokoh Conteh urged that the matter should be disposed of and further submitted that counsels for the petitioners did not file in any forms of affidavit as they were absent in the bundle and further discussed that it seemed there was no petition case filed as the bundle was empty.
He said they brought them for not complying with the rules and that they too have not complied with the rules, stating that the deponent’s occupation was not stated in the affidavit and several omissions. “It is a purported affidavit and it should be struck out”, he urged the court.
In response, Lawyer JK Lansana said they relied on the affidavit filed for and behalf of the petitioner and submitted that proper and enough evidence is filed in their affidavit.
By Abdulai Mento Kamara
Stay with Sierra Express Media, for your trusted place in news!
© 2019, https:. All rights reserved.
