The just concluded Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Sierra Leone Bar Association, also known as the Bar Association, did not end well in Kenema City, eastern Sierra Leone.The two days’ event held from Friday 17 and Saturday 18 May that climaxed in the election of a new executive has been described by the public as not reflective of a group of people in the business of upholding the rule of law.
The outcome of the election, declaring Madam Adama Tuma Jabbi the winner has been disputed, with two of the candidates refusing to accept the results and distancing themselves from the newly elected executive. In a press conference held on Tuesday 21st May, the two disgruntled candidates, Madam Wara Serry-Kamal and Augustine Sengeh Marah jointly issued a statement condemning the events of the Annual General Meeting, saying that ‘it represents a grave assault on the principles of democracy, transparency and the integrity that the association is founded on.’
They claimed that they were not correctly represented as majority of their supporters were not allowed to cast their votes because of the nefarious attitude of the Returning Officer, Commissioner Francis Ban Kaifala who they accuse of being bias in conducting the elections. They cited irregularities like the manipulation of the voter list and the unlawful agenda change among others to their disadvantage. As such, they allege that the executive was not duly elected and hence, not recognized.
According to them, they objected to Ben Kaifala’s nomination as the Returning officer for the elections, citing conflict of interest since he was an official of the government, serving as the Anti-Corruption Boss. They however, admitted that section 38 of the M&A of the Association gives the right to any senior member of the Bar present to perform the role of a Returning Officer. In all, three senior colleagues were nominated, including Hon. Hindolo Gevao and Hon. Cuffie but they claimed that whilst Gevao declined in place for Kaifala, Hon. Cuffie’s nomination was totally ignored, thereby paving way for Kaifala to take up that responsibility.
Another concern raised was that it was not legal for anybody to have nominated Lawyer Adama Tuma Jabbi in absentia. At the time nominations were declared open, Madam Tuma Jabbi was not in the hall yet she was nominated. They also said in addition to that, the Electoral officer altered the agenda to their disadvantage, allowing for the disenfranchisement of most of their supporters are they were out of the Hall. They said whilst their supporters were blocked on their way from Bo to attend the meeting, Ben Kaifala had already declared the process open, an hour less than the stipulated time of arrival. Because of all this, they claim that the process was not free and fair and hence, call for fresh elections to be conducted.
However, in spite of all the anomalies observed, all the candidates accepted that the process went ahead. Had Wara and Marah’s teams simply walked out in protest over the confirmation of Ben Kaifala as Returning Officer when their own nominee was ignored, they would have held high moral grounds to call for a fresh election.
In a question put to the aggrieved party at the press conference, they accepted that three nominees were called upon. According to Madam Wara, Cuffie’s nomination was ignored but they did not make any other nomination. According to them, Kaifala was not the right person but they did not object to his role and accordingly accepted for the process to go ahead.
Also, they could not proffer any legal ground to disqualify Kaifala on a ‘conflict of interest’ claim since he was a paid up senior lawyer himself.
It was put to them at the press conference that to get better grounds for a fresh election to be conducted by the outgoing executive, they would have staged a walk-out protest as their determination to boycott the process and refusing to participate.
It was obvious that the situation got out of hands when they decided to take the law into their own hands by physically attempting to disrupt the process. The members of the two camps (Wara and Marah) became so violent that they left their seats to launch a full scale physical assault, thereby destroying several ballot papers and breaking tables and other properties. The police reportedly came in to quell the situation.
At the press conference, it was also put to them that because it finally dawned on them that the voting pattern was going against them that was why they shunned civility in place of violence perpetration to disrupt the process, they simply resorted to ignoring the question. But they went ahead to accuse Ben Kaifala of issuing ballot papers selectively. But it was too late for them to walk out since some of their own supporters had cast their ballots, hence violence would do the work for them to call for another election.
In support of their call, nine former Bar Association presidents jointly made a release on Tuesday in support of the annulment of the elections. They condemned both the procedural flaws in the process as well as the violence perpetration by the two other camps. But pundits say it is difficult to annul that election even as it was procedurally flawed because of the intolerant behavior of the Wara and Marah camps and the fact that they accepted to go ahead with the process with Ben Kaifala as Returning officer.
“This is a test case for veterans or elders of the Bar. What they now need to do is to bridge the two camps. At least going by their joint statement, the Bar has given birth to two factions: the ‘purported’ winner, Adama Tuma Jabbi and claimants to victory, Wara Serry-Kamal and Augustine Marah,” noted a senior citizen and a retired legal practitioner who begged for anonymity.
He put the blame squarely on the outgoing executive. “For an executive that lives up to task in any organisation, it must ensure that when convening a two-day AGM with an election agenda, the first day is supposed to be very exhaustive to give way to a smooth, time friendly elections the second day.” He said talking about not finishing dealing with all the items on the agenda was sheer negligence. “It is very likely that the outgoing executive failed to strictly adhere to the agenda timeline the first day that led to a spillover of the other items to interfere with the elections timeline.”
Sourced: Equality Now! Newspaper 24/5/24
