The ruling for the hearing on the substantive application of the tribunal against the former Auditor General, Mrs. Lara Taylor Pearce, and her deputy, Tamba Momoh, has been reserved, and the adjournment will be communicated through notices.
On Monday, May 8, 2023, the tribunal convened at the National Social Security and Insurance Trust (NASSIT) Court in Freetown. Lawyer Roland Wright, representing Mrs. Lara Taylor Pearce, presented his objections, both orally and through written preliminary objections dated February 20, 2023, regarding the State's Notice of Motion application dated November 28, 2022.
Lawyer Roland Wright argued that the tribunal should not entertain the November 28, 2022 application since there was no valid affidavit in support of the application filed and served by him from the Law Officers Department. He emphasized that this was a mandatory requirement for any application and pointed out that the affidavit from the State was undated. He requested that the application be disregarded.
Additionally, Counsel Roland Wright stated that the State's application was seeking two separate orders in a legal context. He argued that in the first order, the State was requesting permission to question the respondents as a means of proceeding with the tribunal, but even the State had acknowledged that both respondents were the subject matter. According to the practice direction rules, the State cannot lead evidence or ask for permission to question the respondents since they are non-compelling witnesses. Counsel submitted that the tribunal should refuse the application as it contravened the Practice Directions.
In response to the objections, State counsel Lawyer Joseph Andrew Khalil Sesay argued that even if Counsel for the first respondent received an undated affidavit in support or an affidavit without a case number, the tribunal, according to the Practice Directions, had the authority to use the unsworn and defective affidavit. He emphasized that the tribunal had the flexibility to do so.
Regarding the second objection, Lawyer Joseph Andrew Khalil Sesay stated that the prayers in the application were self-explanatory and that the rules should guide them without circumventing the orders.
During the proceedings, the second respondent, Tamba Momoh, was absent due to medical reasons, as communicated by his legal representative, Mohamed Pa Momoh Fofana. Justice Ansumana Ivan Sesay, one of the judges, raised concerns about the continuous absence of the second respondent and reminded Counsel Pa. Momoh Fofana that, as per the practice directions, the second respondent should be present in court on every adjourned date, unless there are exceptional circumstances, which was not the case.