Dear Pa Momo Fofana
My standing at the Bar may not be as old as yours but I know I can recollect facts of event clearer especially when I attended an event and did not rely on second-hand information as you may have.
To start with the use of Police at meetings of lawyers is not a new phenomenon. In several elections at the Bar for the past decade, Police have always been invited to maintain the peace and sometimes curtail the excesses of hoodlums who should be lawyers. On this occasion in Kenema if you had attended, you would have noticed that where you had supporters of Wara Serry Kamal like Sidikie Boniface who took pepper spray to the hall and used against colleagues, the presence of Police was a necessity.
Equally, because you didn’t attend the AGM sir, you must have seen videos of how Wara Serry Kamal took white bodyguards from Marampa Mines to the hall of the AGM to intimidate lawyers and in some cases attacked lawyers. If you were in Kenema the place of your birth, you would have known these were simply white mercenaries hired by Wara to obstruct the AGM. I am shocked in your letter you didn’t condemn Wara Serry Kamal. One of the APC lawyers boasted that Ms Kamal surreptitiously paid membership and conference fees for those two names who now appeared to be bodyguards of hers. Does that worth your condemnation?
Permit me as my senior to respond to each of the points you raised: the
- Francis Ben Kaifala as presiding officer – I am shocked that for a man of your experience and a diligent practice your reason for Mr Kaifala not to be presiding officer is not based on law rather a mere sentiment. The question for any lawyer would be: is there any specific qualification/disqualification provision in our M&A or any Law to serve as a presiding officer? In article 36 of the M&A, a presiding officer has to be a senior member appointed by members. Is Mr. Kaifala a senior member? Yes. Was Mr Kaifala appointed by members? Yes. Because you were not at the AGM, let me explain what transpired. Mr Kaifala was nominated by VI Lansana and Augustine Marrah nominated HM Gavao. HM Gavao declined and Mr Kaifala was appointed by members present. This is what the law provides and anything else is mere moral position.
- Police – Manning the entrance of the gate to the hall is part of maintaining law and order sir. Unfortunately, by failing to condemn Ms Serry-Kamal who took bodyguards into the hall who are not lawyers would appear to anyone as hypocritical.
- Alteration of Agenda – With your 26 years practice, you ought to know that SLBA is a company and there are procedures set out to alter an agenda for AGM. The question you should ask is whether those procedures were followed. The Indeed a motion was moved for the alteration of the AGM by Mr. Kaifala. That motion was carried by the floor or adopted by members present. The excuse that members were on their way is not a legal justification under any law to nullify a motion which has already been carried by the floor. However, you deliberately failed to say that in all of these proceedings both Marrah and Wara were in the hall and acquiesced to the process.
- Hijack – it appears you may have personal beefing with Mr Kaifala and I do not intend to know the reasons for your beefing. However you saw that this election was effectively bankrolled by Marampa Mines right into the hall with bodyguards but you couldn’t condemn that. Many lawyers know you hold briefs for some of these mining companies so it may be reasonable to say that you would be indifferent if a mining company hijacks the Bar Association.
- Annulment of elections in Kenema – Sir, you may have forgotten that SLBA is a company and not run from anyone’s chambers. All the processes which took place in the hall were supported by law and carried by the floor. You can also confirm from your Juniors in Chambers that all the three candidates who were nominated for the position of the presidency, put themselves forward and their supporters actually voted. If for whatever reason supporters of a candidate attempted to disrupt an election after sensing defeat that attempt cannot nullify a whole election process.
This rejoinder is not personal but wanted to let you know that some of the issues you have highlighted are a complete misrepresentation of facts. I do not know what is your motive but I hope in the spirit freedom of expression, you will find my side of the story enlightening for you.
Mohamed Kamara Esq.
(LLB, BL, LLM, MA
