EKE HALLOWAY?S LEGAL OPINION AS SLPP LEGAL ADVISER :
What is the issue? The issue is as to the choice between the single box system of voting and the multiple box system of voting. Which ever system is chosen is an internal matter for the party to be resolved by the body politic, that is, the Party Conference. But the choice must conform to democratic principles and should not contravene or be inconsistent with any provisions of the 1991 constitution or any other law related to the electoral process, particularly the Electoral Laws Act 2002, as amended.
?Section 35 (1) of the 1991 Constitution states ?? political parties may be established in shaping the political will of the people? and to sponsor candidates for presidential, parliamentary or local government elections?.
?Furthermore, Section 35 (2) of the 1991 Constitution states ?the internal organization of a political shall conform to democratic principles ad its aims, objectives, purposes and programmes shall not contravene with any provision of this constitution?.
?Section 65 (f) of the Electoral Laws Act 2002 sanctions the single box system of voting. Section 11 (2)(iii) of the Political Parties Act obligates registered political parties to ensure that ?? the internal organization of the party shall reflect the democratic principles enunciated in the constitution including provision for the free and fair election of the leadership? the party at regular intervals?.
?The single box system and the multiple box system have merits and demerits.
?It is said that the single box system is prone to the possibility of vote rigging, void votes, compounded with the fraudulent vote of illiterate electors, all of which can neb minimized through voter sensitization and voter education.
?It is also said that the multiple box system is a vehicle for electoral malpractices, principally vote rigging and fraudulent voting, all of which can be minimized through voter sensitization and voter education.
It is said that the multiple box system of voting can also be transparent if properly organized and managed, no possibility of void votes.
?Notwithstanding the merits and demerits of the two systems aforesaid, the multiple box system has been relegated to history on the incoming of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone.
?The single box system is now and has been the standard practice at all levels of elections of executive officers in the party since 1995 to the immediate past in conformity with democratic principles.
?The single box system is that which is recognized that sanctioned by the Electoral Laws Act 2002 for public elections in Sierra Leone.
?The single box system is the internationally acceptable best standard practice in the democratic world of which Sierra Leone is a part.
?The combined effect of the provisions of Section 35 (1) and (2) of the 1991 Constitution; Section 65 (f) of the Electoral Laws Act and Section 11 (2) (iii) of the Political Parties Act 2002; the internationally acceptable best standard practice and significantly the long practice of the party since 1995 and to date on the user of the single box system, demand that the single box system is preferred to the multiple box system.
?I therefore advise that the single box system of voting for the Officers of the Party and for the flag-bearer be adopted and implemented.
?Dated the 20th day of July 2011
Faithfully Submitted,
Eke Ahmed Halloway
AG. LEGAL ADVISER
?
?
?
TO:???? The SLPP Pro-Tem Executive
??????????? C/O The Ag. National Secretary General
?
Copy: The Ag. National Chairman and Leader
??????????? The Ag. National Secretary General
??????????? The Minority Leader, Parliament
??????????? The Ag. Secretary General
??????????? The Chairman Electoral Board
??????????? The Flag-bearer Aspirants
??????????? The Administrative Secretary
?
THE REACTION TO THIS LEGAL ADVICE?BY SLPP CHAIRMAN?JOHN BENJAMIN ?AS REPORTED BY COCORIOKO
?
The mudslinging, verbal brinksmanship and name-callings in the chaos-torn opposition Sierra Leone People?s Party ( SLPP ) continues with gusto ?and now Mr. John Benjamin, who himself ?is? strongly aspiring for re-election to the position of Chairman , has written a stinging letter threatening party?Legal adviser ?and? luminary Eke Halloway for writing a legal opinion warning about the shortcomings of the voting system the party plans to use to determine its flagbearer in its forthcoming Delegates Conference next weekend. Read John Benjamin?s letter carefully and digest? the venom towards Eke Halloway and contempt for some leading members he describes as ?Your ilk?.?
? It is clear from the letter that the SLPP is not far from another injunction or major fallouts from?next week?s elections ?and that John Benjamin is now embroiled in a many-cornered?blood battle?with leading members of the party, including Secretary General, Jacob Jusu Saffa, not to mention legal eagle Bubuakai Jabbi, who may not?have started smoking the? so-called peace pipe after all??following his absence?from the hearing??for a consent judgement after ?withdrawing his injunction that?delayed the election of a presidential candidate? and his own? recent verbal?bashing??from Supreme Court Judge Umu Tejan-Jalloh .
JOHN BEN : AT DAGGERS DRAWN WITH SLPP PARTY BIG WHIGS
?
Dear Lawyer Eke Halloway,
I am in receipt of your Legal Opinion dated 20th July 2011 but which I only received today 21st July 2011. I wish to first state, my disappointment at your refusal to attend the National Executive Meeting I called up to discuss the Delegates Conference and Voting Procedures only to send in a so-called Legal Opinion without participating in the discussions we jointly held on the matter. Let me now state, in writing, my abhorrence for some of your unsavoury tactics so far since you were elected as Legal Adviser. Your performance as Legal Adviser has been lacklustre and leaving much to be desired creating room for suspicion. Let me now place it down in writing that I am highly suspicious of your motives within the SLPP National Executive.
?
My personal suspicions of your motives first emanated from your connivance with Mr. Jacob Jusu Saffa to thwart the intentions of SLPP delegates at the Kenema 2009 Convention under the guise of ?cut-and-paste? computer glitches and ?sanitisation?. It continued with your deliberate mal-handling of the Bankole Thompson Commission of Enquiry into the unfortunate victims of Rape at our party offices as well as your inability to prosecute the Rapists even after the victims had personally identified them to you as the Lead Counsel. Although you are a very senior legal practitioner in this country, you claimed to me that you were unable to execute an Arrest Warrant issued by the Judiciary! My suspicions grew with your serialised deceptions some of which you have perpetuated through public media outlets like newspapers with no regard for your subjection of this party to unwarranted public embarrassments. Now, we are forced to experience this current suspect move of yours, once again, in concert with Mr. J.J. Saffa.
In my opinion, your latest so-called legal opinion is nothing but a farcical piece with ill-motivation shrouded in totally irrelevant quotes from Sierra Leone?s National Constitution and the Electoral Laws Act of 2002 which are of no consequence to the so-called ?issue? at hand but are being deliberately cited by you so as to blur the picture and confuse our members. A close look at your ?legal opinion? reminds me of the Shakespearean ?full of sound and fury but signifying nothing?.
Contrary to your stated opinion, the internal elections of flagbearers and leaders of political parties in the world?s leading democracies are a far cry from what you refer to as ?Best Practise?. I advise you for example, to take a look at the electoral voting procedure for the election of leaders of the political parties in the United Kingdom. Then, you can move over to the manner of voting for the presidential flagbearer of the USA?s political parties which are nothing similar to your ?Best Practise? of ballot papers cast into a Single Box. Such internal party elections are uniquely designed to fit the party?s internal dynamics. Please research into the procedure for the conduct of elections for the Labour Party of the Great Britain. You will find a lot to educate yourself on!
Lawyer Halloway, we are not running a National Election but an internal Political Party Election for Leadership and Flagbearership. In the said circumstances, please allow me to quote from the recent Ruling of the Supreme Court as read out by the Honourable Chief Justice:
With the greatest respect, the Consent Judgment appears to contain?extraneous matters which would not have been countenanced?if the action had gone on to trial and judgement given? matters contained in the said declaration are matters for the?internal consumption?or information of party members, supporters and sympathisers and not for the Supreme Court.?(emphasis mine)
The authors of the recent publicised threats from certain quarters that the party might suffer from another Supreme Court Injunction, should acquaint themselves of the contents of the aforementioned Supreme Court Ruling. Let me assure them through this Letter to you, their conniving cohort, that you can no longer intimidate members of the SLPP with bogus Legal Opinions and threats of Originating Motions to the Supreme Court for Constitutional interpretations. Those callous actions of your ilk will no longer inspire fear into the SLPP membership. They will be treated with the contempt they deserve.
I must here forewarn that any attempt to take the SLPP to Supreme Court for an Injunction on our Delegates Conference slated for next week, will result in the SLPP making a very robust application to the Supreme Court, for an Undertaking from the prosecuting litigant to pay a huge financial compensation to the party for wasting the party?s time if the case is lost. I assure you that this party is not as naive in the Law as it was on February 14th 2011 when your colleague Dr. Bu-Buakei Jabbi sued us in the Supreme Court. Be assured also that the party will NOT be magnanimous to waive off due costs as we did last Tuesday for Dr. Bu-Buakei Jabbi!
Let me reiterate that in my view, your Legal Opinion is a nuisance and a distraction borne of malicious intent. There is nothing in your stated Legal Opinion that covers the very grave concern of possible cheating and intimidation of the numerous illiterate delegates as well as the outcome of Void Votes; which two issues were the force behind the consideration by the honourable members of the Independent Electoral Board to use Multiple Boxes to eliminate such serious demerits of the Single Box voting system.
Void Votes constitute a very serious consideration in a tightly fought race where emotions run high. Imagine if the results of the flagbearer elections provide a difference of only a handful of votes between the two top aspirants and there is a significant number of Void Votes affecting the second placed aspirant (eg: Voters ticked out of this aspirant?s marked area into another contender?s thus automatically voiding the Vote) which Void Votes, if numerically added to this second-placed aspirant?s total will tip him above the pronounced winner. Can you imagine the fall-out? The avoidance of such potential fall-out, is the driving force behind the need for Multiple Boxes.
At this point, let me inform you and others of your kind, that I will not even dignify the allegation from certain quarters that our esteemed SLPP delegates will reduce themselves to hiding ballot papers in their clothing only to then sell such ballot papers to our honoured Flagbearer Aspirants which so far, is the only cited alleged demerit of using the Multiple Box method. I absolutely refuse to dignify such highly offensive allegations with a response or comment.
The Sierra Leone experience of voting with multiple boxes in National Elections was marred by malpractices that mostly occurred during the movements of boxes between Polling Stations and Counting Centers, as was recently cited as happening to the father of Easmon Ngakui Esq. Additionally, in those days, voters used marbles! Nowadays, we use??ballot papers with validation. For this current case, we are speaking not of the use of marbles in national elections at various polling stations but of internal party elections at one location where voting and counting occur in the presence of all and with no movement of boxes. Infact, the Boxes will actually be welded into place behind the curtains thus making them immovable.
In my opinion, applying Scare Tactics by reminiscing of days when multiple boxes would be geographically moved and marbles poured from one box into another during such movement, is unfortunate and extremely inconsiderate.
Once again, let me very firmly state that I consider your so-called Legal Opinion to be nothing other than an attempt to continue to confuse this party more than you and your ilk have already done but this time, we will NOT be intimidated nor be confused by any deliberate unhealthy blurring of the issues with inconsequential and irrelevant quotes from the National Constitution. I cannot make myself clearer on this position.
Yours faithfully,
?????????????????????
John Oponjo Benjamin.
National Chairman & Leader
Sierra Leone Peoples Party.
?
CC: All National Executive Members
CC: All MPs through the Leader of the Parliamentary Council
CC: The Chairman of SLPP Electoral Board
CC: All SLPP Flagbearer Aspirants
?
?
?
People who looked at this item also looked at?
? 2011, Cocorioko Newspaper. All rights reserved. ? For the Latest News on Sierra leone
Source: http://www.cocorioko.net/?p=14186
jim parsons caligula minnesota autism ksl pbskids jp morgan