The case on the Local Government (Amendment) act, which was recently dismissed by the Chief Justice sitting as a single judge on the case, has re-emerged before a panel of five judges on Friday. The panel began sessions on the motion filed by the plaintiffs, UDP, NRP and Momodou K. Sanneh, to review the decision of the Chief Justice.

In his submission on the matter the Director of Public Prosecution, Emmanuel Fagbenle, who led the Attorney General’s team, maintained that the motion is incompetent because it was not properly constituted. He argued that the applicants’ motion before the court is to review the decision of the Chief Justice, adding that the application is not a fresh application as required by the law. He stated that the application is a violation of section 195 of the 1997 constitution.

DPP Fagbenle further submitted that under the Supreme Court rules the only ground for review is contained under Order 54 of the Supreme Court, quoting sections of the law to back up his argument. He said the application before the court could only be reviewed by a panel of seven judges and not by a panel of five judges. He said the application made to the full bench is incompetent, noting that in such circumstances the application before the court is incompetent and should be dismissed.

In his response, Lawyer Ousainou Darboe, counsel for the plaintiffs, stated that the objection raised by the 1st defendant, the Attorney General, is a misconception. He said the application before the court is to review the matter presided over by a single judge, adding that it could not be a fresh application because the suit was dismissed following a preliminary objection by the defendants. He also quoted sections of the law to build up his argument. He stated that where a single judge determines the right of the party that qualifies under Rule 54 of the Supreme Court for a review of the decision, a panel of five judges had the right to review the decision so that no injustice could be left unredressed.

Lawyer Darboe further submitted that section 8 of the Supreme Court Act provide for a review by a panel of not less than seven judges if the party is dissatisfied with the decision of a panel of five judges. He maintained that justice for the case demands that the matter be reviewed, noting that the application is prepared because aggrieved parties are entitled to seek redress.

It could be recalled that the plaintiffs had initially filed the case in the Supreme Court, where it was dismissed by the Chief Justice sitting as single. The plaintiffs then filed a motion before the panel of judges to review the decision of the Chief Justice.

The plaintiffs are contesting at the Supreme Court the recent Local Government (Amendment) act, passed by the National Assembly, which gave the President the power to dissolve and remove elected councilors, while at the same time making the non-election of Area Council Chairmen through universal adult suffrage statutory.

The case was then adjourned to 12th February 2008 for ruling.