Politician Media Practitioner, Dr. Sylvia Olayinka Blyden has asked Justice Adrian Fisher to nullify the outcome of the All People’s Congress (APC) party Convention held early October in Makeni.

Dr. Blyden argued at the Freetown High Court on Wednesday 20 October this year that the outcome of the said event did not reflect a representation of herself as well the majority of members of the APC.

On the previous day, 19 October, Dr. Blyden filed a motion to be an added plaintiff in the ongoing matter between Alfred Peter Conteh versus former President Dr. Ernest Bai Koroma and three others, at the high court. In the originating notice of motion by Conteh, he was seeking to see the APC be more democratic than they are.

It was against the several court sittings that Justice Fisher ruled on the 19th August this year that the APC adopt new constitution with further directives on the composition of the delegates among other matters.

It is against this backdrop that Dr. Blyden is seeking the leave of the court to nullify the convention because she believes the party failed to accede to the directives of the court. “The vast majority that went to Makeni and purported to form a new constitution were handpicked,” she claimed. She also described the party’s constitution as a ‘perpetuation of irregularity’.

She argued that the 1995 Constitution of the APC gave clear directives on the selection of delegates. She said that the court was misled in the originating notice of motion as to the legitimacy of the delegates who make up the national convention of the APC but were not Chairmen.

She said since the court was misled, it was only Chairmen that were excluded but that there was a greenlight for the handpicking of all secretaries and regional executives that graced the convention.

Dr. Blyden insisted that instead of 665 delegates that should have attended the convention, 1,400 delegates went to Makeni. She alleged majority of those delegates were handpicked by the first defendant, former President Koroma.

She told the judge that the reason for her to be included in the matter is for the country’s democracy. She then responded to series of objections made by counsels for the defence.

She argued that her application is neither scandalous nor irrelevant as earlier stated by counsel for the former president. She said that if Ibrahim Mansaray, the lawyer representing Koroma, was in disagreement he should have filed an application to cross-examine her in the witness box. She critically claimed what appears to be scandalous, is that the nation has no functional democratic opposition.

She then sought the leave of the court to grant her application because she believes there are facts in her possession that are relevant.

Meanwhile, counsel representing plaintiff Conteh, Jesse Jengo, informed the court that they were rejecting Dr. Blyden’s application because the matter was already at the concluding stage. He also said he client, Conteh, was not consulted by Dr. Blyden before moving her motion in court.

Lawyer Jengo argued that if Dr. Blyden’s application is allowed it will slow the progress of the matter, which he said could run into the next year. Justice Fisher adjourned the case to the 5th November 2021 for ruling.