The appointees are Dembo Bojang, Lamin Cham, Dodou Sanneh, Hendry Gomez, Lamin K. Saidy and Sulayman Camara, who are to serve as special advisers and deputy special advisers in various offices.
The UDP claimed that the appointment of the defendants, by virtue of section 80 of the 1997 Constitution, “contravenes” section 170 (1) of the Constitution.
The UDP also claimed that at the time of the appointment of the defendants by the President to the various positions, they were holding offices in a political party and that their appointments were “unconstitutional” and should be “null and void”.
The Supreme Court in their verdict held that the appointments of the defendants whilst they held offices in various political parties did not contravene section 170 of the Constitution. Rather their appointments were “valid”.
The verdict further stated that the objectives of the constitutional framework for managing public officers and public servants was clear to the court, adding that sound public administration for good governance should rest on at least two pillars: a political impartiality and neutral civil service, which was also secured and protected from political interference as provided by the Constitution.
“The fact that the appointments by the President were communicated to the 1st defendants and the 2nd defendants (The Public Service Commission) and on occasion the appointees were subjected to the General Orders of the civil service does not alter the status of the appointments as falling outside the public service,” the judgment stated.
It added that the 2nd defendant (the Public Service Commission) and the Secretary General remained mere transmitters and communicators of the appointments and not decision makers, as they would normally be in the case of civil servants.
“The actions of the 2nd defendants and the Secretary General cannot either be regarded as a declaration of the posts in question as being part of the civil service pursuant to Section 166 of the Constitution.”
The verdict also indicated that there was no such designation or declaration as is required by Section 166(1) of the Constitution.
It said the nature of offices under Section 80 of the Constitution, in so far as appointments thereto and termination therefrom are at the discretion of the President, was inconsistent with public service offices, which enjoy security and protection and were subject to appropriate procedures for appointment and termination in a separate Chapter of the Constitution and in other laws and regulations.
The Supreme Court found and held that all the first defendants were public officers but not public servants, adding that the restriction on the holding of office in a political party imposed by Section 170(1) of the Constitution, which was limited by the said Section to public servants and others so declared to be pursuant to Section 166(1) of the Constitution, did not apply to the 1st defendants as they were appointees of the president pursuant to section 80 of the Constitution and are thus not declared to be civil servants.
Therefore, the Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the UDP’s claims in their entirety with no order as costs.
