A five-judge panel at the Supreme Court will deliver ruling on the submissions and counter-submissions in the legal tussle over the controversial Local Government Act on Tuesday.

The Director of Public Prosecution Emmanuel Fagbenle, who stood in for the attorney general and secretary of state for justice and Lawyer Ousainou Darboe, counsel for the three plaintiffs - United Democratic Party (UDP) National Reconciliation Party (NRP) and Momodou K. Sanneh minority leader and National Assembly member (NAM) for Kiang West - both made their submissions during the last sitting on Friday.

Fagbenle informed the court of his intention to rely on the preliminary objection filed at the court, arguing on the grounds that the motion, which was filed by Lawyer Ousainou Darboe, seeking for the review of the ruling by Chief Justice Abdou Karim Savage is an incompetent one.

“The motion is  incompetent and it is an abuse of the letter and spirit of Section 125 and 145 Subsection (1 ) of the 1997 Constitution, as well as Rule 54 of the Supreme Court Act 1990,” he said. He reminded the court that the application before it is not a fresh one, concluding it is therefore not a “competent suit”.

In his counter-submission, Lawyer Ousainou Darboe submitted that the preliminary objection by the defence counsel is a misconceived one and then relied on the interlocutory order to back his argument. “What we are reviewing is a final order made by a single judge.”

He refuted the defence counsel’s references to Section 125 as a procedure in an interlocutory proceedings. According to Darboe, Section 125 subsection 2 provides for a recourse by an aggrieved party to a panel of five judges, so that rights that have been subjected to temporary order can be redressed.

“The same recourse is open for the plaintiffs. Section 8 of the Supreme Court Act provides for a review by a panel of not less than seven judges. Whenever a party is not satisfied with decision of five panel of judges, it can go to a panel of seven judges,” he further submitted.

“I am submitting that justice of the case cries now for justice to be done now.  Adopting certain standards would mean saying bye bye to justice. I call for exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the court so that justice be made,” Darboe told the Supreme Court.

At that juncture, defense counsel Fagbenle made an application for the five judges to determine whether the applications by himself and Darboe should be entertained or not.

The panel then adjourned the case to Tuesday, February 12  for ruling on the submissions.