Lawyer In Trouble


The National Electoral Commission (NEC) on Monday, 9th April, 2018 disclosed to the Supreme Court that the deferment of the run-off elections cost them an extra sum of two million United States Dollars (US$2m).

Such disclosure, according to a legal luminary, is a serious matter for the Plaintiff, Lawyer Ibrahim Sorie Koroma who petitioned NEC, seeking an injunction to the just concluded presidential run-off election which was granted. As it stands now, NEC is reportedly pushing for the Supreme Court to rule that the said Plaintiff bears the said cost.

It could be recalled that the Commission was inter alia before the Supreme Court to obliterate orders slammed on it by the High Court Judge, Justice Abdul Rahman Mansaray on the 24th March, 2018 which deferred the presidential run-off election from the 27th March to the 31st March, 2018.

NEC, it could also be recalled, had insisted that the High Court had no jurisdiction to sit on the said matter that saw the injunction handed down by the presiding Judge. NEC still stands it ground.

The panel of three Judges at the Supreme Court could not fathom the basis on which Justice Mansaray granted the injunction since there was no argument and the judge never mentioned such in his ruling of the preliminary objection raised about its legitimacy.

Justice Nicolas Brown-Marke Justice Eku Roberts and Justice Glena Thompson all said Lawyer for the plaintiff, Lansana Dumbuya whose experience almost qualifies him for the position of a Supreme Court Judge took advantage of the High Court judge naivety.

They pointed out that the plaintiff prayer for a forensic investigation on NEC without stating how it would be financed and implemented clearly shows that the plaintiff lawyer came to court through the wrong method.

Justice Browne Marke wondered how a judge could grant such an injunction without the plaintiff making an undertaking as to cost supposed the injunction turns out to be wrong.

“The judge must consider the merit of the injunction before granting it,” said Justice Browne-Marke, noting that the intention of the plaintiff – a private individual not contesting the run-off election was to derail the process which he succeeded. He therefore asked if the plaintiff’s lawyer realize the serious implication of what he did.