A.G.’s appeal on referendum review dismissed by C.J.
In news from the Chief Justice’s courtroom, an application by the Attorney General’s Ministry for leave to appeal the C.J.’s decision granting judicial review of the government’s proposed amendments to the Referendum Act was heard this morning. The substantive matter will be dealt with on June thirtieth but this morning on behalf of the A.G., senior counsel Lois Young argued that Chief Justice Abdulai Conteh erred in granting the leave and instituting an interim injunction that bars the government from proceeding with the planned changes. But despite Young’s assertions, and after hearing the submissions of the citizens group’s attorney, Anthony Sylvester, the Chief Justice declared, “It is with a heavy heart I have to decline the leave being sought to appeal the orders I made on May fifteenth.” Conteh maintained that while he is a “human being and fallible” and “may be wrong in matters of law”, he was not convinced that his decision was in error. “The court did not seek to intervene in the legislative process…This case raises fundamental issues of cardinal constitutional importance and the court must be given the opportunity to pronounce on the lack or merit of issues after which either side may seek to correct the court’s possible erroneous conclusion”. Despite her loss today, Young was confident that her arguments will be successful in the substantive case.
Lois Young, Attorney on behalf of Attorney General Ministry
“The thing about it is I applied for an early date and he never set it down—or rather the Registry never set it down for hearing so we went ahead and tried to get leave for appeal.”
Janelle Chanona
”But you are convinced that the judge did not—I heard you mention that the circumstances of this case does not merit his intervention in legislative process?”
Lois Young
“I am convinced that the circumstances did not merit and will not merit his intervention.”
Anthony Sylvestre, Citizen’s Group Attorney
“The position we’ve taken so far is that we’re either right or wrong and we believe we are right in this. We have good legal basis which we brought the claim on initially and which we think we will eventually be triumphant and successful. As the Chief Justice indicated, the issues raised are very, very important, I mean it’s a fundamental thing to be seeking to change somebody’s constitutional right and not giving them an opportunity to actually say something on it. And that’s essentially what this case is about.”
In handing down his decision, the Chief Justice also made it clear that while the judiciary and the legislature have to work together, all public officers, even Ministers, are subject to injunctive relief.
