High Court Injunction Freezes Key APC Functions and Electoral Complaints

An interim injunction issued by Sierra Leone’s High Court has restrained APC National Chairman Osman Foday Yansaneh and National Secretary General Lansana Dumbuya from performing their executive functions, according to a report by The Sierra Leone Telegraph.

The order, issued on 27 August 2026, has also suspended hearings by the APC Internal Electoral Complaints Board (IECB), which had been examining petitions linked to the party’s constituency elections held on 25 July.

Electoral disputes placed on hold

Before the injunction, the IECB had heard petitioners and respondents and reviewed result sheets, delegate lists, videos, audio recordings and photographs. Where records were contested, the board sought verification from the APC National Secretariat and the IEMC.

The petitions raised allegations including violence, disputed delegate lists, disenfranchisement, assisted voting, over-voting, altered results and improper declarations. These allegations remain matters raised in the petitions and are not established findings across all the disputes.

In Constituency 111, the IECB reportedly found that violence had disrupted the electoral process and ordered a rerun. The board also dealt with disputes in Constituencies 063, 064 and 067 involving candidacy, corrected results, vote counting and allegedly altered ballots.

With the proceedings suspended, decisions awaiting implementation have been left uncertain, while candidates affected by the cases do not know the final status of their contests, the report said.

Questions over party administration

The injunction affects the two officials responsible for major aspects of the APC’s executive administration. The Sierra Leone Telegraph’s report says the order could make routine actions such as issuing correspondence, requesting records, giving notices and implementing decisions legally risky while the restraint remains in force.

The substantive proceedings may determine whether the IECB had authority to hear the petitions, exceeded its mandate or was improperly constituted. Other unresolved issues include whether the extension of APC executive officers was lawful and what effect intervention by the Political Parties Registration Commission under Section 39(5) of the Political Parties Act 2022 had on the party’s leadership.

The report compares the current dispute with Alfred Peter Conteh v Dr Ernest Bai Koroma & Others, a case presided over by Justice Adrian Fisher. It notes, however, that the two matters are not identical. According to the report, the earlier litigation dissolved the APC National Executive Committee and National Advisory Council and established an Interim Transitional Governing Committee.

It also refers to Samuel Hinga Norman v Dr Sama S. Banya in discussing the distinction between constitutional questions and disputes governed by a political party’s own rules.

Uncertainty over constitutional challenge

The APC’s recognised national leadership had announced an intention to challenge before the Supreme Court the passage of the 2025 Constitutional Amendment Bill. The party argued that Parliament had acted contrary to Section 108 of the 1991 Constitution.

The restraint on the Chairman and Secretary General has created uncertainty over who may instruct lawyers and commence constitutional proceedings in the APC’s institutional name. The available report does not establish whether the planned challenge has been filed or what the substantive court proceedings will ultimately decide.

Yoni Emmanuel Sesay, the report’s author, argues that the interim order’s broad practical effect risks disabling the party’s principal executive leadership. He describes the situation as approaching a “functional decapitation” of the opposition party and contends that a narrower order could have targeted specific disputed acts, preserved records and maintained temporary administration under lawful supervision while expediting the main hearing.

Those views are the author’s assessment. The legality and scope of the injunction remain subject to judicial determination, and the outcome of the substantive proceedings has not been stated.