By Joseph Lamin Kamara
Vice President Samuel Sam-Sumana has been sacked. That`s no news. My purpose here is not aimed at informing you about that controversial decision by President Ernest Koroma. Rather, it is to bring out the unconstitutionality in the act and the aberrancies in the immediate events that preceded it.
The Constitution of Sierra Leone Act No. 6 of 1991 states under Section 54, Subsection 3 that “A candidate shall be deemed to be duly elected as Vice-President if the candidate who designated him as candidate for the election to the office of Vice-President has been duly elected as President in accordance with the Provisions of Section 42 (which provides for election to the office of President).
The intent of Subsection 3 above is implicitly, or even explicitly, stating that the elections to the offices of the President and Vice President are one and the same. Simply put, a candidate is considered elected Vice President in the same manner and at the same time a candidate is declared President in a presidential election.
Under the country’s laws therefore, notes social, political and legal commentator Musa Mewa, the President and Vice President are both elected.
“The election of the Vice President becomes automatic once the President has been elected,” Mewa says.
In terms of eligibility, the same qualifications specified by the Constitution for election to the office of President are what are specified for the Vice President.
“54. (2) A person – (b) shall not be qualified to be a candidate for the office of Vice-President unless he has the qualifications specified in section 41.
“41. No person shall be qualified for election as President unless he –
(a) is a citizen of Sierra Leone;
(b) is a member of political party;
(c) has attained the age of forty years; and
(d) is otherwise qualified to be elected as a Member of Parliament
Section 41 therefore, which is a complement to Section 54, clearly expresses that once a person meets all its provisions, they are eligible to be ELECTED, NOT be REMOVED or SACKED as Vice-President.
Nevertheless, apart from Subsection 3 of Section 40 which establishes his status as “the guardian of the Constitution and Subsection 1 of Section 40 that establishes his supreme executive authority as president of the country,” President Koroma, in sacking his vice president, relied on Section 41(b) even though there is no provision there for a sitting president or vice president to be sacked.
The expulsion of Vice President Sumana from the ruling All Peoples Congress (APC) is purely a party issue which one can`t meddle with.
But, notes analysts, the status of a vice presidential candidate changes from a party nominated candidate to a nationally elected president once the candidate who designated him becomes President.
“What if the APC, which expelled the Vice President, says again that it has expelled President Koroma from the party? Does that mean he will automatically cease to be the President of the Republic of Sierra Leone?” asks Mewaa, a Barrister at law asks further.
No Justification
Events in the last days have raised a lot of issues in the 1991 constitution which is currently under review. But of greater interest is the apparent refusal of its drafters to explain why they did not say clearly whether the President can or cannot sack his Vice President. Fortunately, one of them is still with us and Abdulai Conteh, a Justice of Appeal at the Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas, is currently among the most trending on social media following his piece vehemently condemning the President`s action.
Justice Conteh says the President`s advisers did not served him right in this instance.
He says membership of a political party is qualification for election to the office but that nowhere is it stated in the Constitution that membership or continuing membership was a necessary qualification for remaining in office.
Justice Conteh notes that both sections 41 and 54 address the situation of candidates for respective offices of President and Vice President. Neither section, he says, requires continuing membership of a political party as a qualification for continuing or remaining in either the office of the President or the Vice President.
“Therefore, reliance on the expulsion of the Vice President from the APC as a warrant for his removal from office can find no justification in the textual provisions of the Constitution.”
Where a sitting Vice President, by Sierra Leone’s standards, is required to no longer serve in that office, after they have been elected, as the sections above provide, Subsection 8 of Section 54 states:
“The Provisions of Sections 50 and 51 of this Constitution, relating to the removal from office of the President, shall apply to the removal from office of the Vice-President.”
Section 50 of the Constitution, in its entirety, deals with “mental or physical incapacity” of the President, in respect of their removal from office. And President Koroma did not say Sumana was mentally or physically incapable to continue working.
Therefore, we should, instead, be looking at Section 51 which provides for the removal from office of the Vice-President on grounds of misconduct. This is so particularly because Koroma also states that misconduct was expressed or implied in the fact that Sumana “sought asylum from a foreign embassy demonstrating a willingness to abandon his duties and office as Vice President of our beloved Republic.”
It is clear that this other reason advanced by the President for sacking his vice can be placed under only misconduct. If that is the case, then his action has not followed the provisions of Section 51 which is the only section in the Constitution that provides for the removal from office of the vice president for misconduct, through parliament. The Constitution under this Section makes it very clear that the President and the Vice President must not be removed from offices for misconduct except after parliamentary procedures.
In the same way the Constitution does not give anybody the right to sack the President without parliamentary procedures; the same Constitution does not give anybody the right to sack the Vice President without parliamentary procedures.
But as President Koroma has now demonstrated, the office of the Vice President has been made to turn like the office of any minister hired by him. The Constitution has made it clear that Sumana was not APPOINTED, but VOTED into office, just like Koroma was.
However, the fact that Koroma did not subject his action to the required parliamentary procedures proves his action is grossly unconstitutional.
There is no expressed or implied provision in the Constitution that states the President can sack the Vice President, says Mewa,pointing out that in this regard there is “lacuna” in the Constitution which should have prompted the government to go through Parliament which was the only legal instrument it had.
The drafters of the 1991 Constitution, as suggested by a BBC correspondent, may not have wanted a situation in which the President could rise one day and sack the Vice President so they decided not to include a provision for that in the Constitution.
But though President Koroma relies on his executive power which he claims confers upon him the authority to sack the VP, Justice Conteh says executive power is nowhere defined in the Constitution.
“But the Constitution does clearly provide for the removal of the Vice President from office and how this should be done. This clearly puts the issue of removal from office of the Vice President beyond the exercise of executive power, and cannot, on any view, be subsumed under it.”
It must be noted here that the removal of Sam-Sumana from office is not necessarily what is generating so much interest, but rather, it`s the manner in which the act was done, as indicated in all the above arguments.
The main opposition Sierra Leone People’s Party late Wednesday also joined the fray. In a statement signed by its Secretary General, the party characterized the President’s act as “a deliberate and blatant violation” of the Constitution which he is supposed to guard and protect.
The Vice President could have been removed from office, but the due process should have been followed, says the civil society group Campaign for Good Governance (CGG).
CGG has urged the Supreme Court to fairly deal with the matter whenever it goes before it, as Sumana has already promised to challenge his sacking in the court.
The unconstitutionality in sacking the Vice President cannot be beaten, but President Koroma’s action cannot be divorced from the frosty relationship between the two, which preceded the sacking.
Since his election as Vice President, the only actually noticeable state duties Sumana performed were the shutting down of the two radio stations belonging to the two major political parties, for incitement of possible public anger and violence. He also famously sacked the director of Prisons Services following the infamous jailbreak at the then Pademba Road Prisons leading to the escape of over 60 prisoners. Those two actions by the Vice President were taken far back in the first term of their government and in the absence of President Koroma. This was perhaps before the two fell apart. But in their second and last term of governance, they did not demonstrate a good working relationship, leaving Koroma appointing ministers instead of his principal assistant to perform state duties on his behalf.
Whatever may answer for the poor working relationship between Sumana and his boss leading to the Vice President’s sacking, the precedent is a bad one in the country.
But all things considered, President Koroma clearly has some explanation to make to Sierra Leoneans. But Sumana too does have a lot of answers to provide.
© Politico 17/03/15
