By: Mohamed Sahr
mohamedsahrpro@gmail.com
Hon. Justice Adrian Fisher on 25th September 2023 at the High Court of Sierra Leone questioned the Defense Counsel Lawyer Jengo if he is as an expert in passport of which he denied.
The incident took place at the High Court before the said Judge during a matter between Citizens of Sierra Leone versus Netpage over country’s National passport.
Justice Fisher furthered that if he could not prove that the passport was lacking the features contested, how would he convince the court that the passport was not biometric.
Lawyer Jengo Sam filed an affidavit in the ongoing matter that which he submitted to the court. He told the court that the reason why he came to court was because he served as a citizen of the country.
He informed the court that they were not strangers and the passport was contracted to Netpage for and on behalf of the people of Sierra Leone and not for foreigners or other members, therefore they (people of the country or citizens) were bound to take Netpage to court, he said.
Justice Fisher asked Lawyer Jengo Sam about their “locus standi” not being any partners to the signage of the contract which terms specified clearly who should seek redress or which either party that had rights to take the defaulting party to court.
Lawyer Jengo said that the passport was produced for them and on their behalf as citizens of the country by the government of the people, by the people and for the people, means that the actions of the government going into agreement for the signage of the passport contract given to Netpage to produce it, was for the people of Sierra Leone, and that what the government did was acting on behalf of the people as proxies because not everyone can be on the contract list for signage.
In his submission Lawyer Jengo Sam argued that they could take the government to court rather than Netpage because the government had faith in doing what they viewed and deemed was correct but it was the second party that defaulted and it was the right of the third party (the people) consuming the passport to take the matter to court.
In his submission lawyer Ransford Johnson representing Netpage also field an affidavit of motion asking the court to strike out the originating motion against his client.
He informed the court that he had submitted to the court that the contract of his client to produce E-Passport went through parliament and was ratified.
Responding to lawyer Ransford Johnson, Jengo Sam Esq said they also filled a supplemental affidavit dated 13th September. 2023 and the said supplemental affidavit was field with exhibits including a photocopy receipt which indicates that the plaintiffs paid their monies directly to Netpage who were the second defendant in the action and submitted that they relied on the entirety of the affidavit.
Hon. Justice A Fisher adjourned the matter in two weeks’ time for further hearing.