On August 27, 2026, the High Court in Sierra Leone issued an interim injunction, preventing All People's Congress (APC) National Chairman Osman Foday Yansaneh and National Secretary General Lansana Dumbuya from carrying out their executive duties. The court's decision has brought a halt to the Independent Elections and Campaign Board (IECB) hearings. The injunction's immediate effect has created significant uncertainty among candidates within the party regarding their political aspirations and the electoral process.
Internal Electoral Turmoil
The All People's Congress (APC) was in the midst of an internal electoral process when the injunction was issued. Its Internal Electoral Complaints Board (IECB) had been actively conducting hearings on petitions stemming from constituency elections held on July 25, 2026. These hearings addressed a range of serious allegations, including incidents of violence, disputes over delegate lists, claims of disenfranchisement, and instances of assisted voting.
Further allegations brought before the IECB involved over-voting, instances of altered results, and improper declarations of election outcomes. Amid these contentious proceedings, the IECB had taken action in one specific case, ordering a rerun of the election in Constituency 111. This decision was made in response to confirmed reports of violence occurring during the initial polling in that constituency.
Judicial Overreach Concerns
The current legal intervention draws comparisons to the earlier Alfred Peter Conteh v Dr Ernest Bai Koroma & Others case, which led to significant judicial involvement in the All People's Congress (APC) internal affairs, including the dissolution of both its National Executive Committee and National Advisory Council. While the present injunction has not dissolved the entire executive or established a transitional body, concerns about judicial overreach are evident. The controversy centers on several issues, including the tenure of the APC executive, the impact of the Political Parties Registration Commission's (PPRC) intervention under Section 39(5) of the Political Parties Act 2022, the legality of extensions granted to party officers, and the authority of the Independent Elections and Campaign Board (IECB). Section 39(5) of the Political Parties Act 2022 is designed to prevent a leadership vacuum if a party cannot complete its internal transition before an executive's normal term expires. However, the existing injunction risks creating precisely the vacuum that this statutory mechanism was intended to avoid.
Broader Implications and Alternatives
The interim injunction has created a significant challenge regarding the authority to represent the All People's Congress (APC) legally. With the National Chairman and National Secretary General barred from their duties, questions arise as to who can instruct lawyers and initiate major constitutional proceedings on behalf of the party. This situation has broader implications for the APC's ability to engage with critical legal processes.
The democratic cost of the injunction is substantial, according to observers. Candidates who had unresolved petitions before the Independent Elections and Campaign Board (IECB) now lack a functioning forum to address their grievances. This creates uncertainty surrounding past decisions and makes it difficult for the party to defend the integrity of the July elections. Additionally, the principal officers of the APC face the possibility of contempt proceedings if they are perceived to violate the court's order.
Prior to the injunction, the APC had publicly declared its intention to challenge the passage of the 2025 Constitutional Amendment Bill before the Supreme Court. The party planned to argue that Parliament had employed an incorrect voting threshold during the bill's passage. However, the current legal paralysis within the APC jeopardizes its capacity to pursue this constitutional challenge effectively.
Sources suggest that a more measured judicial order might have been issued. Such an order could have specifically restrained only the contested acts, ensured the preservation of relevant records, maintained a temporary administrative structure within the party, and expedited the substantive hearing of the case. This alternative approach, it is argued, could have minimized the broader disruption to the APC's operations and democratic processes.
