By Janet A Sesay
Four members of the All People’s Congress (APC), from Wards 180 and 181 in Constituency 054, Tonkolili District, have filed an Originating Summons before the High Court of Sierra Leone, before Hon. Justice Adrian Fisher, seeking several orders concerning the conduct and outcome of the ward rerun elections.
The matter is brought under the High Court Rules, 2007, with John A. Tholley and Aminata K. Kamara, both members of the APC from Ward 180, Constituency 054, Bongay Town, named as the first and second plaintiffs.
Lamin Osman Koroma and Femi P. Taylor, both members of the APC from Ward 181, Constituency 054, Masingbi Town, Tonkolili District, are named as the third and fourth plaintiffs.
The defendants are the Political Parties Regulation Commission (PPRC) as the first defendant; the National Coordinator, Internal Elections Management Committee, as the second defendant; the Internal Elections Management Committee of the All People’s Congress as the third defendant; and the All People’s Congress as the fourth defendant.
The plaintiffs are asking the High Court to issue an order of mandamus against the first defendant, directing the Political Parties Regulation Commission to prepare, provide and give them a written ruling on an appeal dated 6 July 2026.
According to the Originating Summons, the appeal was filed and submitted to the first defendant in connection with the ward rerun elections conducted in Wards 180 and 181 respectively, in Constituency 054, Tonkolili District.
The plaintiffs are further seeking an order of mandamus directing the first defendant to publish a written ruling on the same appeal dated 6 July 2026.
The appeal was reportedly filed against a decision of the Independent Elections Complaint Board (IECB) of the All People’s Congress, dated 1 July 2026, concerning the ward rerun elections held in Wards 180 and 181 of Constituency 054.
The plaintiffs are also asking the court to declare that the constituency elections conducted by the second and third defendants on 25 July 2026 in Constituency 054, together with all subsequent proceedings arising from those elections, are null and void and should be set aside.
They contend that the constituency elections were conducted without compliance with a directive issued by the Political Parties Regulation Commission to the All People’s Congress on 9 July 2026.
The plaintiffs are further asking the court to set aside and annul the ward elections conducted in Wards 180 and 181, Constituency 054, Tonkolili District, citing what they describe as a series of irregularities and non-compliance with the APC Constitution 2022 and the APC Internal Elections Rules and Regulations 2025.
They are also seeking an order declaring null and void all subsequent proceedings that resulted from the said rerun elections in Wards 180 and 181, Constituency 054, Tonkolili District.
In addition, the plaintiffs want the court to direct the second and third defendants to produce and display at appropriate places the Final Voters Register used by the third defendant in conducting the ward elections in Wards 180 and 181.
They are also asking that copies of the Final Voters Register be provided to them.
The plaintiffs further want the second and third defendants to produce and display at appropriate places the Final Results of the elections conducted in Wards 180 and 181 respectively.
They are also asking the court to direct that copies of the final results be made available to them.
Another relief being sought is an injunction restraining the fourth defendant, the All People’s Congress, from accepting, acknowledging, recognising or working with the purported winners of the Constituency 054 elections pending the hearing and determination of the matter.
The plaintiffs are additionally seeking an interim injunction restraining the second, third and fourth defendants from conducting the District Level Elections for Tonkolili District pending the hearing and determination of the application.
They are also seeking an interlocutory injunction restraining the second, third and fourth defendants from conducting the District Level Elections for Tonkolili District pending the hearing and determination of the substantive matter contained in the Originating Summons dated 7 August 2026.
The Originating Summons directs all parties concerned to attend before one of the judges in chambers at the Law Courts Building on Siaka Stevens Street, Freetown, at 9:00 a.m. on the stated hearing date, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard.
The document further states that an affidavit sworn by John A. Tholley has been filed and submitted in support of the application and accompanies the Originating Summons.
During proceedings, S.I. Koroma, representing the plaintiffs, urged the court to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining the relevant defendants from proceeding with matters relating to the disputed elections pending the determination of the outstanding matter before the Political Parties Regulation Commission.
- Koroma, R. Nylander and S. Bangura represented the second and fourth respondents in court.
The respondents have filed an affidavit and an affidavit in opposition to the application. Counsel for the respondents informed the court that the plaintiffs were preparing a reply to the opposition.
Koroma explained that the matter, which initially commenced as a motion, had now been converted into an inter partes application seeking an injunction against the relevant defendants.
In support of the application, Koroma referred the court to an affidavit filed in 2026 containing eight exhibits.
He submitted that the plaintiffs risked serious prejudice if the injunction was not granted, particularly because their right to contest the election was at issue.
According to counsel, the plaintiffs were executive members who had been involved in the election process, but their names were omitted from the final list of candidates eligible to contest the elections.
He said the omission formed the basis of their petition.
Following a decision against them, Koroma said the plaintiffs pursued an appeal and brought the matter before the Political Parties Regulation Commission.
He told the court that while the plaintiffs were awaiting the PPRC’s determination, the Commission issued a directive dated 9 July 2026.
He relied particularly on paragraph four of the directive, which he said clearly directed that elections should not be conducted in a constituency where a dispute, petition or other matter relating to the poll remained unresolved.
Despite the directive, Koroma said the constituency elections were conducted on 27 July 2026 while the matter was still pending before the PPRC.
He argued that the injunction was therefore necessary to preserve the position of the parties until the outstanding dispute was determined.
Koroma submitted that there was a serious issue to be tried and that damages would not be an adequate remedy if the application was refused.
He stressed that the plaintiffs were not asking the court to assume that their appeal would succeed.
Their complaint, he said, was that the appeal had been properly lodged and should have been considered and determined before the electoral process proceeded.
He further argued that because the appeal was submitted in writing, the decision should also have been formally communicated in writing.
The absence of a ruling, he said, had left the plaintiffs uncertain about their next legal step and potentially affected their right to appeal.
The lawyer also relied on the principles of procedural fairness and legitimate expectations.
He argued that persons affected by an electoral decision should be given a fair opportunity to present their case and defend their rights.
He maintained that the prescribed procedure must be followed regardless of the seriousness of the issues involved.
According to Koroma, participation in an electoral process, including the right to contest an elective position, carries an expectation that the rules will be applied fairly and consistently.
He further submitted that the Election Management Committee should have established whether any petitions or appeals remained unresolved before proceeding with the elections in the affected constituencies.
On the balance of convenience, Koroma argued that it favoured the plaintiffs.
He said allowing the election process to proceed before the dispute was resolved could create substantial difficulties if the PPRC subsequently ruled in favour of the plaintiffs.
By then, he argued, the electoral process could have been completed, making an effective remedy more difficult.
Maintaining the status quo, he submitted, would protect the interests of all parties and allow the relevant authorities to determine the outstanding matter before further electoral steps were taken.
Koroma also referred to correspondence sent by the plaintiffs to the relevant institution, saying it was intended to formally notify the authorities that the dispute remained unresolved.
He maintained that the plaintiffs should not lose their opportunity to pursue an appeal or other legal remedy because a decision had not been communicated.
He therefore urged the court to grant the interlocutory injunction and preserve the status quo until the PPRC determines the outstanding matter.
The plaintiffs’ position, he concluded, was not that the court should determine the merits of their appeal at that stage, but that their rights should be protected and due process followed while they awaited a formal determination.
In opposing the application, counsel for the respondents Brima Koroma submitted that the balance of convenience clearly favoured the defendants, particularly the second and third defendants.
The Counsel argued that granting the relief sought by the plaintiffs would have serious and far-reaching consequences for the respondents.
The respondents maintained that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a sufficient basis for the relief being sought, nor had they established any compelling reason why the defendants should be restrained in the manner proposed.
Counsel submitted that the court should consider the practical consequences of granting the application.
According to the respondents, the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the existing position rather than granting an order that could have significant consequences for the second and third defendants.
The respondents further submitted that the plaintiffs had no proper basis for the relief sought against them and that there was therefore no justification for disturbing the present position.
Counsel also argued that the applicants had failed to satisfy the necessary preconditions for the application to proceed.
The respondents urged the court to consider what they described as the limited authorities supporting the requirements and conditions imposed in applications of this nature.
According to the respondents, those conditions had not been met by the plaintiffs.
Counsel said the deficiencies in the plaintiffs’ application were further reinforced by the matters identified in points three and four of the respondents’ submissions.
The respondents therefore urged the court to refuse the application in its entirety.
The matter was before the High Court for consideration of the competing arguments concerning the proposed interlocutory injunction and the disputed electoral process in Constituency 054.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to grant the reliefs contained in their Originating Summons, while the respondents have opposed the application and urged the court not to interfere with the existing electoral position. The matter come today for further proceeding at the High Court No.1 in Freetown.