By Fatima Kpaka
The High Court in Freetown has granted the All People’s Congress (APC) 27 days to take the necessary legal and administrative steps to address outstanding issues surrounding its internal elections, amid a protracted dispute over the party’s failure to complete lower-level polls within a previously prescribed timeframe.
The matter came before Justice Adrian Fisher on Monday, October 19, 2026, following an application by APC lawyer Suliaman Kabba Koroma, who sought the court’s guidance and an extension of time to conclude pending elections at various levels of the party structure.
Addressing the court, Counsel Koroma said significant progress had been made in complying with orders relating to the APC’s internal electoral process, noting that about 80 percent of the issues raised in the substantive matter had been resolved.
He explained that the original case centered on the expired tenure of the party’s executive and an injunction restraining party officials and organs from carrying out certain functions pending the determination of the matter.
According to him, completing the remaining district, regional and special-organ elections would lead to the emergence of new leadership and potentially resolve concerns surrounding the tenure of the previous executive.
Koroma informed the court that elections had already been conducted at ward and constituency levels and in 14 of the APC’s 17 districts. He attributed delays in the remaining districts to unresolved petitions, rerun requests and electoral disputes within the party.
Among the outstanding issues, he cited a ward election in Kailahun, a constituency election in Kambia and district elections in both Kailahun and Kambia.
He further pointed to disputes involving the Independent Electoral Management Commission (IEMC), the Independent Electoral Advisory Commission (IEAC) and the party’s complaints-handling mechanism, arguing that many of the challenges stemmed from internal electoral processes rather than the court’s orders.
Koroma also stressed the need for constitutional compliance, maintaining that any amendments concerning leadership tenure must be undertaken within the timelines 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 argued.
However, Lawyer Jengo, representing Alfred Peter Conteh and other plaintiffs, opposed aspects of the application, particularly the request for additional time to complete district-level elections.
He argued that the application effectively sought to vary the court’s August 31, 2026 order and could potentially determine substantive matters already before the court.
According to Jengo, the officials seeking the extension continued to operate under the supervision of a party secretariat whose mandate had expired, which was one of the primary issues that triggered the legal challenge.
Describing the APC Constitution as the foundation of the party, Jengo said all electoral bodies, including the IEMC and related committees, operated under the authority of the National Executive and were accountable to it.
“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,” he submitted.
He maintained that the plaintiffs had approached the court not out of a desire for litigation but because they believed the party’s constitution was being breached.
Jengo further argued that individuals operating under the authority of the expired executive should also be restrained where their actions contributed to delays in achieving a smooth leadership transition.
Justice Fisher acknowledged the concerns raised by the plaintiffs, noting that the mandates of the relevant bodies had indeed expired. However, he observed that the dispute arose at a critical stage when the party’s electoral process was already underway.
The judge emphasized the need for the APC’s Interim Electoral Management Committee to complete the election process while ensuring order, fairness and adherence to legal procedures.
He also cautioned against creating opportunities for disgruntled individuals to disrupt the process without first pursuing appropriate legal remedies.
Justice Fisher stressed that anyone dissatisfied with the conduct or outcome of the elections should be free to challenge the process through the courts by filing the necessary petitions and affidavits.
Responding to the court’s observations, Jengo clarified that his clients were not opposed to adjustments that would facilitate the completion of the APC’s elections, provided such measures remained within the bounds of the law.
He further stated that complaints arising from the electoral process should be referred directly to the court rather than party structures, insisting that legal compliance was essential to preserving the party’s integrity.
In his ruling, Justice Fisher said he wanted the necessary action to be prepared within 27 days before issuing further directives on the matter.
The judge explained that he could not make additional orders without first hearing the plaintiffs’ formal response to the application for an extension of time.
He noted that some elections could still be conducted during the period but emphasized that the outstanding disputes must first be addressed to provide clarity on the way forward.
The matter was adjourned to October 27, 2026, for further hearing.