By Janet A. Sesay
The Chieftaincy election matter between Respondent, Alfred Sovula and the Petitioner, Sakpa Jibao Gbekpa continued on Monday, 4th November, 2024 at the High Court in Freetown before Justice Alfred Tommy Ganda.
Lawyer B.J. Reffle, Counsel representing the Petitioner in an application before the court, prayed for an extension of an interim injunction against the Respondent who was declared winner during the Chieftaincy election.
This is a civil matter between the Petitioner and the Respondent as it relates to Section 13 of the Chieftaincy Act 2009 is having to do with the petition of the result of the a Paramount Chieftaincy election of which Alfred Sovula Gbandoma was purportedly declared as Paramount Chief of Bumpe Gao Chiefdom in the Bo District.
The First Respondent is this matter is the Electoral Commission of Sierra Leone (ECSL) and the Provincial Secretary’s Office in Bo and Alfred Sovula as Second and Third Respondents, respectively.
Lawyer Reffle representing the Petitioner drew the attention of the that they have received information that indicates that the Respondent was organizing activities in the chiefdom that appear to suggest that he is the Paramount Chief of the said chiefdom, which he submitted is against the spirit of the Injunction declared by the court.
He therefore applied for an extension of the Interim Injunction on the basis that on the 1st November, 2024, the 3rd Respondent Alfred Sovula, attended a function in the capacity of an elected Paramount Chief and also that the following Saturday did the same.
Lawyer Raffle furthered in his submission that they are not just in court to prevent Sovula from operating, but for also holding himself from acting as the elected Paramount Chief of Bumpe Gao Chiefdom.
Lawyer Reffle informed the court that he will file before the court a video evidence showing Sovula dancing and celebrating as the elected Paramount Chief even though there is an injunction against him.
He however applied for an extension of the injunction against Sovula, on the basis that his Counsel failed to file a notice in opposition to their application made before the court even when the said Counsel was ordered to do so.
He continued that Sovula’s Counsel has not responded to their application made before the court for an Interim Injunction by virtue of their notice of motion.
Counsel Raffle further submitted that in the said motion, they asked for an Interim Injunction and that the learned Judge technically vacated it for the Respondent to file their affidavit in opposition which they did not do.
He submitted that Sovula, the 3rd Respondent is now acting as the Paramount Chief even after he was warned through his Counsel not to conduct himself as such, pointing out that it was clear that the said warning cannot substitute an order for an Interim Injunction.
In that light, Lawyer Raffle applied for an extension of the Interim Injunction, noting that if Sovula’s Lawyer should be heard in the matter, he must first of all ensure compliance with an order to pay cost because he has not complied by response to the applicant filed before the court for the said Interim Injunction.
Lawyer Raffle also submitted that his client has been crying for the past two month for justice to be served but to no avail.
Lawyer Reffel made his application pursuant to Order 35 Rule 1 of the High Court Rules 2007, noting that the Injunction was to maintain the status-quo.
Lawyer Sarkoh on behalf of the Respondents replied that the Petitioners were the one dancing in the Chiefdom and not his client, adding that the Interim Injunction has elapsed long before now. He pointed out that once it elapses, there are no other applications before the court and so his client cannot hold himself as Paramount Chief-elect where there is no injunction pending from the court.
He furthered that the Injunction the Petitioner is praying for, ought not to have been granted in the first place.
He made his submission pursuant to Section 18 (1&2) of the Chieftaincy Act and said the Act makes it cleared on how to challenge an election; adding that the said Section has given the court the power to declare any Paramount Chief election null and void when there is contention.
“For the court to determine an election null and void the petition must be heard,” he maintained, and therefore asked the court not to grant any Injunction and that the issues been complained about have never been infringed on by his client.
The court, he said, must be given the opportunity to hear the said petition and to determine whether what they have been complaining about or what they are alleging is true or not.
Justice Ganda however adjourned the matter to a later date for the Respondent’s Lawyer to reply to the application made by the Petitioner’s Lawyer requesting for an extension of the time limit of the required Interim Injunction against Alfred Sovula’s purported claim to the Paramount Chieftaincy of Bumpe Gao Chiefdom.