Lawyer for the plaintiffs, Sulaiman Banja Tejan-Sie, said they were actually not seeking an interlocutory injunction on the entire administrative arrangement of the party, but that they prayed for an injunction restraining the party to proceed with programmes and activities geared towards the holding of the party national delegates’ conference scheduled to hold in the eastern district headquarter town of Kenema.
He went on to canvass the bench that the issues raised in their originating summons were “political and constitutional”, noting that numerous irregularities characterised the process used for the conduct of the party’s just concluded lower level elections, coupled with the fact that the plaintiffs were suspended from the party.
He added that it would be just and correct in the circumstance for the judge to slam an interlocutory injunction, to restrain the party from holding its planned conference and at the same time preserve the status quo.
Meanwhile, counsel for the defendants, Umaru Napoleon Koroma, responded to his argument, saying that they also would rely on the entirely of the contents of the affidavit in opposition, seeking the court to allow the SLPP to proceed with its conference.
Lawyer Koroma also submitted that the party had conformed with the orders of the Supreme Court by establishing rules and regulations for the conduct of its executive elections, adding that even the first defendant, Chief Somanoh Kapen, had acknowledged the rules and regulations, including the fact that he even addressed a letter to the Inspector General of Police, informing him about the planned elections.
He further submitted that any injunction restraining the party from holding its national delegates’ conference would create more confusion and would further derail the progress of the party, which was now working assiduously to ensure they emerged victorious in the 2018 elections.
Counsel for the defendants also observed that a speedy trial was very important than an injunction on the party.
Concluding, lawyer Koroma stated that the balance of convenience should be in favour of the defendants as they were national officers charged with the responsibility of ensuring the effective day-to-day running of the party.
Justice Babatunde Edwards adjourned the matter to Wednesday 18 January 2017 for a ruling.