High Court Dismisses Injunction Against SLFA Elections

Justice Alfred Ganda of Court No. 2 has dismissed an injunction application filed against the Sierra Leone Football Association (SLFA), clearing the way for its Executive Committee elections to proceed as scheduled on August 2, 2025.

The legal action was brought by SLFA President Thomas Daddy Brima and presidential aspirant Aminata Bangura, who sought to halt the electoral process following their disqualification by the SLFA Ethics Committee. The election is scheduled to take place at the Gateway Hotel in Freetown.

Brima argued that he was duly nominated and endorsed for the presidency but was unjustly disqualified. Bangura, on the other hand, claimed that her integrity checks remained incomplete due to the SLFA’s failure to collect her fingerprints for security clearance. Both parties alleged procedural flaws and a lack of due process in their disqualification.

In his ruling, Justice Ganda emphasized that the applicants failed to exhaust internal remedies as stipulated by Article 66 of the SLFA Constitution and related regulations, which require disputes to be resolved through the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) before seeking redress in national courts.

The respondents, through their legal representation, challenged the legitimacy of the application, arguing that Bangura lacked standing due to her non-membership in the SLFA and that Brima’s eligibility remained unverified due to the absence of a valid clearance certificate.

Justice Ganda further ruled that the application did not satisfy the legal criteria for an interlocutory injunction, citing the absence of a prima facie case and the failure to demonstrate that damages would be an inadequate remedy. He concluded that any potential harm suffered by the applicants could be compensated financially if the SLFA’s actions were later found to be unlawful.

The court ordered each applicant to pay NLe150,000, totaling NLe300,000, as costs to the respondents. Despite claims from the applicants’ counsel that the decision was reached in error and that an appeal is pending, the court upheld the respondents’ arguments, effectively allowing the elections to proceed without judicial interference.