By Janet A Sesay

The Supreme Court of Sierra Leone headed by Chief Justice Komba Kamanda has issued directions governing the hearing of three consolidated constitutional matters, setting out timelines for the filing and exchange of pleadings and written submissions by the parties.

The order was made by the presiding Judge Chief Justice followed by other four judges at the panel on Thursday, October 8, 2026, following the consolidation of the related causes before the Supreme Court.

Under the order, the parties are required to file a memorandum specifying the issues agreed upon for determination at the hearing of the consolidated cause within 14 days.

The ruling said the Defendant/Applicants office of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice have also been directed to file and serve their Statement of Case within 10 days of the order.

The Plaintiffs/Respondents headed by Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara in turn, required to amend, file and serve their Statement of Case within 10 days of receiving the Defendant/Applicants’ Statement of Case.

The Supreme Court further directed the Registrar to maintain a single consolidated file and record for the consolidated cause.

The Court also clarified the role of the party admitted to participate in the matter as amicus curiae.

According to the order, the amicus curiae’s participation extends to the consolidated cause but shall be confined to making submissions of law on the questions raised by the parties.

The amicus curiae has been barred, at this stage, from raising new issues, seeking new reliefs or advancing the case of any of the parties.

The Court further directed that the amicus curiae shall not participate in interlocutory applications unless specifically invited by the Court to make submissions on a particular issue.

The parties have also been ordered, within 10 days of the order, to serve the amicus curiae with a list of all relevant documents and processes filed in the causes that have been consolidated.

In addition, every party is required to serve the amicus curiae with any process filed in the consolidated matter within 10 days of its filing.

The Court further directed the amicus curiae to file and serve a final written address, together with a list and bundle of authorities, in accordance with the Court’s directions.

The order is expected to guide the further proceedings and hearing of the consolidated constitutional matters before the Supreme Court.

Earlier the Solicitor General Osman I Kanu made a submission before the court where he urged the Supreme Court to consolidate three related constitutional matters concerning the interpretation and application of Section 108 of the 1991 Constitution.

Making the submission before the Supreme Court, counsel Kanu argued that the requirements prescribed under Section 108 are mandatory and must govern the passage of any Bill seeking to alter the Constitution, particularly where such an alteration concerns Section 6 of the constitution.

He submitted that the three matters arose from the same transaction relating to the passage of the Bill on 10 August 2006 and involve substantially similar constitutional questions.

According to counsel Kanu, the matters involve the same defendants and are represented by the same counsel, making consolidation desirable in the interest of judicial efficiency and the proper administration of justice.

Counsel Kanu further argued that hearing the matters separately could result in conflicting or inconsistent submissions, directions or decisions on identical constitutional questions.

He maintained that consolidation would also help avoid unnecessary delays and costs to the parties while allowing the Court to determine the common legal issues in a single proceeding.

In support of the application, counsel referred the Court to authorities previously cited, including a matter involving the Chief Electoral Commissioner and two others, as well as Supreme Court Citation No. 1 of 2007 and Supreme Court Citation No. 2 of 2007.

He told the Court that those matters were considered together by the Supreme Court on 26 July 2007 because they concerned the same subject matter relating to the then Vice President’s contest in the 2007 elections.

Addressing the affidavit filed in support of the application on 2 September 2026, counsel Kanu relied particularly on paragraphs 10 and 11, which he said demonstrated the practical convenience and interest of justice in having the three matters heard together.

The Solicitor General further submitted that the matters raise identical or substantially similar questions of law, particularly concerning Sections 91(1), 94(2), 108 and 171 of the 1991 Constitution.

He identified as a central question for determination whether the requirement prescribed under Section 108 is mandatory in relation to any attempt to alter the constitutional position under Section 6.

Counsel Kanu argued that the common legal issues affecting the parties made it undesirable for the matters to proceed separately, as doing so could create a risk of conflicting directions or judgments on the same constitutional questions.

He therefore submitted that consolidation would provide a practical means of avoiding inconsistencies while promoting the efficient administration of justice.

In support of the application, counsel referred the Court to Order 4 Rule 4(1) of the High Court Rules, the Supreme Court Act 1982 and relevant provisions of the 1991 Constitution.

He submitted that where the rules governing the original and supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal do not expressly provide for a particular matter, the practice and procedure applicable in the High Court may apply, mutatis mutandis.

Counsel further relied on Order 4 Rule 4, which provides for the joining or consolidation of matters where a common question of law or fact arises, where the rights or reliefs claimed arise from the same transaction or series of transactions, or where, for any other reason, it is desirable for the matters to be heard together.

He maintained that the present application meets those requirements, arguing that the three constitutional matters raise common questions of law and substantially similar reliefs.

Counsel Kanu therefore urged the Supreme Court to consolidate the matters rather than allow them to proceed separately.

He reiterated that the central issue before the Court concerns the interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions and whether the requirement under Section 108 constitutes a mandatory constitutional requirement in any attempt to alter the constitutional position under Section 6.

The Supreme Court is expected to determine whether the circumstances of the three matters justify their consolidation in the interest of judicial economy, consistency and the fair administration of justice.

Counsel Kanu concluded by urging the Court to grant the relief sought by the defendants in the Notice of Motion dated 11 September 2006, relying on the grounds advanced in support of the application.

Lawyer Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara, Africanus Sesay and Bamine Davies in reply said they have no objections to the statements of motion made by solicitor General Osman I Kanu.