Lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Sulaiman Banja Tejan-Sie, earlier argued that the Dr. Prince Harding-led executive had no right to suspend his clients from the party and claimed that even the orders of the Supreme Court, which stated that the party should establish rules and regulations for the conduct of the party’s internal elections, were not adhered to.

At the previous adjourned date he submitted the plaintiffs had never prayed for the High Court to slam an interlocutory injunction on the party’s entire internal arraignment, rather they were seeking for an injunction to restrict plans to hold their National Delegates’ Conference scheduled for February 2017.

According to him, they took the party to court on the grounds that their rights had been blatantly violated and that reservations and concerns they raised were never looked into by the electoral board of the party, following their recent internal elections. 

On the other hand,   lead counsel for the defendants, Umaru Napoleon Koroma, also argued that the party had strictly adhered to orders of the Supreme Court and had respected the said recommended rules and regulations for the conduct of internal elections of the party.

Lawyer Napoleon Koroma had also submitted at the previous hearing that the plaintiffs had deliberately refused to exhaust the local remedies of the party, to address their reservations and concerns, after the recent elections were held in various parts of the country.

He concluded that the bench should take into cognizance the fact that the country’s general elections were just around the corner and that slamming an interlocutory injunction would apparently undermine and derail the SLPP’s posture, strategy, preparations and all other arrangements required to regain the country’s political hegemony.