-Melvin Tejan Mansaray Asserts

By Alusine Daybreak and Team

Prominent commentator Melvin Tejan Mansaray has strongly challenged a statement attributed to Lawyer Gevao concerning the absence of the Speaker of Parliament, Rt. Hon. Sengerpoh Thomas, from proceedings at the Supreme Court yesterday.

The controversy emerged during a constitutional debate at the Supreme Court, where the absence of the Speaker became a subject of discussion.

According to Mansaray, Lawyer Gevao, while addressing the court, stated that the Speaker was absent because he was reportedly unwell and suffering from diarrhea, commonly referred to in Krio as “Run Belleh.”

However, Mansaray has rejected that explanation, describing the statement as false and questioning the basis upon which such information was presented before the Supreme Court.

The issue reportedly took another turn shortly afterwards when Parliament issued a statement clarifying the whereabouts and condition of the Speaker.

According to the Parliamentary clarification, Speaker Sengehpor Thomas was said to be well and had travelled to Guinea on an official assignment.

The conflicting accounts have consequently generated public debate, particularly because the matter arose in the context of proceedings involving constitutional issues before the country’s highest court.

Mansaray Questions the Accuracy of the Statement  

Reacting to the development, Melvin Tejan Mansaray accused Lawyer Gevao of providing inaccurate information concerning the Speaker’s absence.

Mansaray argued that there is a significant difference between informing the court that a senior public official is absent because of illness and stating that the official is away on an official assignment.

He maintained that statements made before the Supreme Court should be based on verified and reliable information, especially when they concern the whereabouts or health of a senior constitutional office holder.

Mansaray therefore described Lawyer Gevao’s explanation as a “lie” while pointing to Parliament’s subsequent clarification as evidence that the initial account should be questioned.

Parliament’s Clarification Fuels Debate 

The statement from Parliament has added another dimension to the controversy.

If the Parliamentary account is accurate, the Speaker’s absence was connected to an official assignment in Guinea rather than illness.

The development has prompted questions from members of the public and political observers about how information concerning the Speaker came to be presented during the court proceedings.

The Speaker of Parliament is a key constitutional figure, and his official engagements are matters of public interest. Consequently, any conflicting explanation regarding his whereabouts can attract considerable attention, particularly when such information is raised during proceedings at the Supreme Court.

Calls for Accuracy in Court Proceedings 

The controversy has also renewed discussions about the importance of accuracy when lawyers and other stakeholders make statements before the courts.

The Supreme Court remains one of the most important institutions in Sierra Leone’s constitutional and legal framework. Statements made during proceedings can therefore have significant public and institutional implications.

Mansaray’s criticism comes amid heightened public interest in the ongoing constitutional debate, with citizens closely following developments and statements from lawyers, Parliament and other institutions involved in the matter.

For Mansaray, the conflicting accounts should not simply be ignored. He believes that the circumstances surrounding the Speaker’s absence should be properly clarified so that the public can distinguish between verified information and claims made without sufficient confirmation.

The Big Question  

The central question now being raised is whether Lawyer Gevao had accurate information when he addressed the court or it was a prank and whether the statement about the Speaker’s alleged illness was based on incorrect information.

While Mansaray has openly described the statement as a ‘’lie’’ the competing accounts mean that the circumstances should be treated carefully until the relevant parties provide further clarification or supporting evidence.

The development has nevertheless added another layer to an already closely watched constitutional debate, with public attention now extending beyond the legal arguments to the accuracy of information presented during the proceedings.

As the constitutional hearings continue, many observers are expected to watch closely for further clarification from Parliament, the Speaker’s office, or the legal representatives involved.

The controversy therefore remains centred on one key issue: Was Speaker Sengehpor Thomas absent because of illness, as allegedly stated by Lawyer Gevao, or was he in Guinea on an official assignment, as Parliament subsequently indicated?

Until the matter is fully clarified, the conflicting accounts are likely to remain a subject of public debate.