The PMDC’s chief legal adviser, Mohamed Pa. Momoh Fofanah, on Friday at the Supreme Court adduced reasons why VP Solomon Berewa is not eligible to flag the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) for the August 11 presidential election.
In his submission Mr Fofanah said, “the nomination of Mr Berewa as flagbearer of the SLPP is inconsistent with section 14 (1) of the Political Parties Act as amended”.
He added that the nomination of Mr Berewa also contravened section 76 (1) (h) as the disqualification they were seeking “is premised on the fact that Solomon Berewa for the time being is the Vice President of the country,”
The PMDC’s chief legal adviser further stressed that, “for one to be nominated as a presidential candidate he should also be eligible to be elected as a Member of Parliament”.
“Although the Vice President is not seeking to be elected as a Member of Parliament,” Pa. Momoh said, “but he must also be eligible to be elected as a Member of Parliament”.
He submitted that because the Vice President was not eligible to be elected as an MP he should not also be nominated as a presidential candidate.
The plaintiff tendered that, “the nomination of the Vice President as the presidential flagbearer of the SLPP be null and void.”
In reply Eke Halloway, representing Solomon Berewa, said the thrust of the matter bordered on the nomination of the first defendant as the presidential candidate.
He cited the relevant portions in the constitution which clarified the qualification of a person to contest in a presidential election.
Eke Halloway further argued that section 41 and 42 of the constitution, which they said Solomon Berewa was at the time of his nomination as presidential candidates on 7 July 2007 qualified for election as president, that he was still so qualified in that he was a citizen by birth; a member of a political party and had attained the age of 40, adding that he was qualified to be elected as a Member of Parliament.
“By the reason of the above, the declaration sought by the Plaintiff/Applicant should be refused” the defendant argued.