By Hon. Alpha Ben Mansaray
The All People’s Congress (APC) has filed two separate cases before the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone arising from the controversial parliamentary proceedings surrounding the Constitution Amendment Bill.
Speaking during an interview on Liberty TV on September 1, APC legal representative Ady Macaulay, Esq., explained that although the two cases stem from the same parliamentary controversy, they are distinct in terms of the parties involved, the legal questions raised and the reliefs being sought.
According to Macaulay, one of the cases was filed by the APC together with the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, Hon. Abdul Kargbo, and Deputy Leader Hon. Daniel Koroma.
The defendants in that matter include the Speaker of Parliament, Hon. Segepoh Thomas; the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice; and the Clerk of Parliament.
Macaulay explained that the case is principally concerned with the interpretation of the 1991 Constitution, particularly Sections 108, 91 and 51, among other relevant constitutional provisions.
He said the applicants are seeking the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the constitutional provisions governing the parliamentary process and clarification on how those provisions should properly be applied.
The second case was filed by Hon. Osman Abdal Timbo in his capacity as a Member of Parliament. Macaulay emphasized that the matter is a separate legal action initiated by Timbo based on his participation in the parliamentary proceedings.
Hon. Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara, Esq., is representing Timbo in the matter.
Macaulay further explained that Timbo’s case challenges actions and decisions taken by the Speaker of Parliament, particularly whether the interpretation and subsequent steps taken during the parliamentary proceedings were consistent with the 1991 Constitution.
In essence, Macaulay said, the APC/Kargbo/Koroma case seeks constitutional interpretation of the relevant provisions, while the Timbo case directly challenges the constitutionality of aspects of the parliamentary process and actions taken by the Speaker.
Macaulay used an analogy to illustrate the distinction between the two cases, saying it was like travelling to Waterloo: two people may take different routes but ultimately arrive at the same destination.
Similarly, he said, the two cases concern the same broader constitutional controversy but approach the issues through different legal routes.
The distinction is significant, as the cases were brought by different parties and raise different legal questions, even though both arise from the same constitutional dispute surrounding the parliamentary proceedings.
The cases follow the APC’s earlier commitment to seek judicial determination of issues surrounding the parliamentary process. The party maintains that the Supreme Court is the appropriate constitutional forum to provide authoritative clarification on the interpretation and application of the 1991 Constitution in relation to the disputed parliamentary proceedings.
