Lawyers representing the first respondent in the election petition case led Sheriff Marie Tambadou have launched a rambling attack before the Supreme Court challenging the legality of the election petition.
Highlighting what he considered as “a fatal defect” in the petition, Tambadou submitted that there was no compliance with the election Act and Rules observed by the petitioner during the filing of the petition. He contended that both the petition and the amended one were not served on the first respondent as well as a notice of security after five days of filing the petition, citing rules nine and eleven of the election act to back his argument.
Barrister Tambadou finally urged the court to disregard the petition for not fulfilling the rules as stipulated in the election act, citing similar cases to strengthen his argument.
Reacting to the application lawyer for the petitioner, Borry s Touray also referred the court to the prayers contained in the motion which he readout to the court to support his submission.
Lawyer Touray argued that the failure of petitioner to file a notice of petition presentation does not actually affect the petition while referring the court to the constitution to back his argument.
According to the petitioner’s lawyer, petition filed under election act has time limit to be heard and determined arguing that the application by the first respondent in this case lacked merit and should be entirely dismissed by the court with a cost.
Meanwhile the second respondent, the independent electoral commission and the third respondent, the attorney general both associated themselves with the submission of the first respondent.
The panel of five-member judges led by the chief justice subsequently adjourned the matter to December 28th for full hearing.