The judiciary has responded in a press release questioning the credibility of the European Union for such insinuation that a 2019 High Court decision to declare the runners-up in ten constituencies stripped away confidence in the impartiality of the Sierra Leonean judiciary.
The 1991 Constitution guarantees the independence of the judiciary, albeit some, believe that people have lost faith in it. The European Union Election Follow-up Mission in Sierra Leone, which was in town a few weeks ago, reviewed proposals made to the administration following the 2018 presidential election.
Shortly after the 2018 presidential election the Court dismissed ten members of Parliament and replaced them with the runners-up in that election.
The Election Follow-up Mission is based on the firm belief that if an election is ruled invalid, another election should be held in accordance with Section 146.4 of the Public Election Act.
The Judiciary, on the other hand, believes that while Section 146.4 of the Public Election Act does provide that if elections are deemed unlawful, they shall be redone, it is incorrect to conclude that this is the sole remedy available.
The press conference also mentioned what the Judiciary described as a misplaced reliance on Section 146(4) of the Public Election Act of 2012. The institution maintained that those provisions must be interpreted in accordance with Sierra Leone’s Constitution; Act No. 6 of 1991, which they say supersedes the provisions of the Public Elections Act of 2012.
They claimed that the EU’s press release about their claim purposefully deceived the public on issues that were never discussed or put before the Judiciary.
In its news release, the Judiciary also said that “in the performance of its judicial duty, it shall be subject to only the Constitution or any other legislation, and shall not be subject to the control or direction of any other person or authority.”
The communiqué from the Judiciary also noted that the European Union cannot oversee the Judiciary and that the Judiciary, in its judgment, concluded that reruns were essential in some cases and ordered them. The statement also stated that there were instances where a repeat was not required, noting that the 2nd individual was declared the winner.
The Judiciary characterized the EU’s insinuation as professionally inept because they (the Judiciary) had previously refused the Judiciary’s Communications to video-record its conference in the Chief Justice’s chambers on the premise that the EU wanted every discussion to be strictly confidential, despite the need for transparency.
