By Allieu Sahid Tunkara
The newly appointed counsel for the plaintiff in the ongoing trial on the sacking of Samuel Sam-Sumana as Vice President, Charles Francis Margai, has accused the appointed Vice President of treating the court with disrespect.
Margai said this during his first appearance at the Supreme Court after his appointment to replace James Blyden Jenkins-Johnston as lead counsel for the plaintiff. He said appointed VP Victor Foh, who is the 2nd defendant in the matter, has failed to appear since commencement of the hearing.
“Victor Foh has never appeared before the court while the plaintiff has been appearing,” Margai told a packed courtroom on Wednesday.
Margai will be helped by Lawyer Pa Momoh Fofafah, and Robert Kowa, among others, in the matter brought up by Mr Sam-Sumana who is challenging the constitutionality of his sacking by President Ernest Bai Koroma in March.
Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Franklyn Bai Kargbo, is the first defendant in the case, and both him and Mr Foh are being represented by lawyers Berthan Macauley Jnr. and Ajibola Manley Spaine, respectively.
On Wednesday, Sam-Sumana was himself in court to witness the proceedings. Margai told the court, presided over by a five-man panel of judges headed by Acting Chief Justice Valecious Thomas, that the matter before the court was a serious one that should be treated with the seriousness it deserves.
“As this court is the highest court of the land, it deserves the highest respect. The plaintiff must be commended,” Margai said, praising his client for attending the trial.
Margai was speaking in response to an application made by the counsel for the 1st defendant, Berthan Macauley Jr, challenging the sitting position of Sam-Sumana in the court. It followed his decision to ask the sacked VP to occupy the front seat, where lawyers usually sit. Macauley Jr argued that that position was meant only for lawyers.
Margai argued that the Bar’s seat did not extend to the front row where the plaintiff was seated. He told the court he had to confer with the plaintiff when the need arose and that was why he`d allowed him to sit in that row.
“I allowed him to sit in the front row for ease of conferment,” he said. Besides, he went on, “the Attorney-General sat in the Bar’s seat and he was in the court as a defendant.”
“What is good for the goose, is also good for the gander.”
Berthan Macauley contested the submissions of Margai, arguing that the Attorney-general was the “titular” head of the Bar and that he was supposed to take the Bar’s seat.
Having heard submissions from both counsels, the Acting Chief Justice agreed with the counsel for the first defendant and ruled that Sam-Sumana relocated to the back seat and the sacked VP complied.
Meanwhile, Counsel for the plaintiff informed the court that he received the file about the matter from the plaintiff at 9pm on Tuesday and that the file contained an order from the court that the erstwhile counsel for the plaintiff and the counsels for the defendants amend their cases. He further told the court that there was a ‘divergence of views’ between the plaintiff and his former counsel who had put out a notice that he would not amend the case.
Counsel for the plaintiff told the court that his client was of the view that the order of amendment issued by the court was of paramount importance to the case. Since he could not conduct his case that day, Counsel Margai sought leave of the court to adjourn the sitting so that he could file papers pertinent to the amendment of the case.
Counsels for the defendants made no objection to the application for adjournment.
Counsel for the 1st defendant, however, told the court that he would wait and see the papers from the plaintiff`s counsel.
Outside the court room, the situation was rowdy as pockets of youths who gathered at the Cotton Tree on Siaka Stevens Street and State Avenue chanted anti-Sam-Sumana slogans, apparently supporting Ernest Bai Koroma`s action of relieving Sam-Sumana of his duties.
In this situation, security operatives, comprising men from the General Duty and the Operations Support Division (OSD) of the Sierra Leone Police, armed with Ero and SLR rifles, as well as baton guns, were seen ordering the youths to maintain the peace or risked being arrested.
The court is tasked with answering questions as to whether the Vice President could be removed from office by any means other than that contained in section 50 and 51 Act No. 6 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone 1991 which has to do with physical and mental incapacity and misconduct, respectively.
Also, it will decide on whether the phrase ‘Supreme Executive Authority’ being one of the titles of the President contained in Section 40(1) of same, includes the power to remove the Vice President from office.
Matter comes up on Tuesday 16th June.
(C) Politico 11/06/15
