By: Audrey Raymonda John
The High Court in Freetown has given parties involved in the ongoing All People’s Congress (APC) internal election dispute 27 days to prepare the necessary court processes, as arguments continued on Monday, October 19, 2026, over delays in completing the party’s lower-level elections.
The matter came before Justice Adrian Fisher following an application by Lawyer Suliaman Kabba Koroma, who sought the court’s guidance on completing the outstanding elections and explaining the delays in complying with previous court orders.
Counsel Koroma told the court that considerable progress had been made in implementing the orders concerning the APC’s internal elections, although several electoral disputes and petitions remained unresolved.
He submitted that approximately 80 per cent of the issues in the substantive matter had been addressed, while acknowledging that some aspects of compliance remained outstanding.
According to him, the substantive case concerned the expired tenure of the party’s executive and an injunction restraining the executive and other party organs from performing certain functions pending the determination of the matter.
Counsel Koroma argued that completing the outstanding district, regional and special-organ elections would lead to the emergence of new executives and potentially resolve the dispute surrounding the tenure of the previous leadership.
He informed the court that ward and constituency elections had been conducted before the matter came before the court. Of the party’s 17 districts, he said elections had been held in 14, leaving three outstanding.
He attributed the delays to unresolved petitions, requests for reruns and disagreements within the party’s electoral structures. Some elections, he explained, depended on the resolution of disputes arising at earlier stages of the process.
Among the outstanding matters he identified were a ward election in Kailahun, a constituency election in Kambia, and district elections in both Kailahun and Kambia.
Counsel Koroma also referred to disputes involving the Independent Electoral Management Commission (IEMC), the Independent Electoral Advisory Commission (IEAC) and the party’s complaints-handling body, referred to during the proceedings as BPAC.
He maintained that the challenges largely arose from the party’s internal electoral arrangements and should not necessarily be attributed to the court’s orders.
On constitutional compliance, Counsel Koroma argued that any proposed amendments relating to the party’s leadership and tenure should be undertaken within the period prescribed by the APC constitution.
“If you want to amend the constitution, everything should be done within the three-year period. Once you go beyond that period, you cannot continue to rely on the constitution to justify the extension,” he stated.
He said his application was intended to obtain the court’s guidance on completing the remaining elections without further disputes or delays.
Responding on behalf of Alfred Peter Conteh, Lawyer Jengo told the court that his clients opposed the application, particularly the proposed fourth order seeking an extension of time for the APC to complete its district-level elections.
He explained that the application sought to vary the court’s order of August 31, 2026, and obtain further directions concerning incomplete ward and constituency elections, regional elections, diaspora elections across the six regions and elections for the party’s special organs.
Counsel Jengo argued that granting the proposed orders could effectively determine substantive issues already before the court.
He maintained that those seeking the extension would continue to operate under the supervision of the party’s secretariat, which was also responsible for providing the funds required to conduct the elections.
According to him, one of the principal reasons the matter had been brought before the court was that the tenure of those managing the secretariat’s affairs had expired.
Emphasizing the importance of the APC constitution, Counsel Jengo likened it to the roots of a tree, explaining that just as roots sustain a tree, the constitution provides the foundation and authority upon which the party operates.
He argued that the bodies responsible for conducting the elections, including the IEMC and other electoral committees, operated under the supervision of the National Executive and were expected to report to it after conducting elections and announcing the results.
“My Lord, there is now no National Executive. These bodies were constituted at almost the same time. It is therefore only proper that the IMC, which is also facing these problems, should be looked into,” Counsel Jengo submitted.
He said the timelines stipulated in the party’s constitution were intended to ensure orderly transitions and prevent situations in which members would repeatedly have to approach the court to enforce compliance.
Counsel Jengo stressed that APC members were expected to comply with the rules and regulations governing the party. He said his clients had not approached the court because they enjoyed litigation but because they believed the party’s constitution was being violated.
According to him, they sought judicial intervention after their efforts to secure compliance with the constitution failed.
He further maintained that those operating under the expired executive should also be restrained if their continued activities contributed to the circumstances preventing a peaceful transition.
“My Lord, those who have been operating under that executive, if the executive has been restrained, must also be restrained because they were part of the very circumstances that prevented a peaceful transition from taking place, compelling the plaintiffs to seek the court’s intervention,” he said.
Justice Fisher acknowledged the plaintiffs’ argument and noted that the mandates of the relevant bodies had expired. However, he observed that the dispute had arisen at a critical time when the party’s electoral process was already underway.
Continuing his submissions, Counsel Jengo said his clients were also APC members and remained emotionally attached to the party. He explained that their intention was to ensure that the constitution governing the party’s affairs was upheld.
He argued that repeatedly tolerating non-compliance could turn violations into established practices and undermine respect for the law and the authority of the court.
Counsel Jengo maintained that the Election Management Committee had received specific orders from the court but had complied with some while failing to comply with others. He warned that continued tolerance of such conduct could encourage further disregard for judicial directives.
In response, Justice Fisher indicated that the plaintiffs could contribute to resolving the outstanding issues surrounding the electoral process.
The judge stressed the need for members of the Interim Electoral Management Committee to be clearly informed that the elections must be completed.
Counsel Jengo welcomed the judge’s observations, noting that his senior colleague, Lawyer Koroma, had often helped him improve his submissions by offering valuable input, particularly on matters affecting their common interests and those of the APC.
Justice Fisher expressed concern about creating opportunities for individuals seeking to disrupt the electoral process to return to the party’s affairs without properly addressing their grievances.
He emphasised that the elections should proceed smoothly and without disruption. However, he made it clear that anyone dissatisfied with the conduct or outcome of the forthcoming polls should be allowed to challenge the process through the appropriate legal channels.
The judge explained that aggrieved persons should bring their complaints before the court and follow the necessary procedures, including filing the relevant affidavits and petitions.
Counsel Jengo subsequently clarified that his clients supported appropriate variations to the existing court orders where necessary to enable the APC to complete its elections.
He said they were not opposed to strengthening the orders to address the challenges preventing the party from conducting its polls, provided the process remained within the law.
He also acknowledged the judge’s observation that parties affected by circumstances impeding the implementation of court orders should return to the court for redress.
Counsel Jengo maintained that complaints concerning the forthcoming elections should be brought before the court rather than taken to the party’s board or other bodies.
Addressing public perceptions that his clients frequently resorted to litigation, he reiterated that they did not enjoy repeatedly appearing in court but had no alternative when they believed the party’s constitution was being violated.
He recalled that his clients had previously been involved in proceedings concerning the introduction of the APC’s 2022 Constitution and were again before the court because of concerns about the current situation.
He concluded that conducting the elections in accordance with the law would strengthen the party, promote unity among its members and enable it to compete effectively.
Before adjourning the matter, Justice Fisher said he wanted the necessary court processes to be prepared within 27 days, which he considered sufficient time, after which he would give further directions on how the matter should proceed.
The judge explained that he did not want to issue further directions without first hearing the plaintiffs’ lawyer’s response to the application seeking an extension of time to complete the lower-level elections.
He also noted the possibility of conducting the outstanding elections, particularly as some seats had already become due for elections.
Justice Fisher stressed that the outstanding issues had to be addressed before final arrangements could be made, adding that the parties needed a clear understanding of the way forward.
He said he could not proceed to fix the elections without first considering the concerns raised before the court.
The matter was subsequently adjourned to October 27, 2026, for further hearing.