A recent court ruling in Bamako, Mali, has dealt a significant setback to the leadership claim of Sierra Leonean businessman, Alhaji Amadu Juldeh Sowe, following the suspension of decisions taken at the disputed Tabital Pulaaku International (TPI) General Assembly in Banjul, The Gambia, on 26 and 27 September 2026.
In a press release dated 9 November, the Executive Bureau led by His Highness Muhammadu Sanusi II announced that the Court of Commune IV in Bamako had upheld its application, affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the matter and ordered a stay of enforcement of the decisions, elections and appointments arising from the Banjul General Assembly of 26 and 27 September 2026.
The court’s jurisdiction is particularly significant because Mali is the headquarters of Tabital Pulaaku International and the country in which the organisation is registered.
Consequently, the Executive Bureau’s position is that the Malian judiciary has the authority to adjudicate disputes concerning the organisation’s governance and the legitimacy of decisions taken in its name. The court’s ruling, therefore, carries considerable weight in the ongoing leadership dispute.
Crucially, the order prohibits Juldeh Sowe, Abou Sow and persons acting with them from relying on those decisions to present themselves as newly elected officers or legitimate representatives of TPI.
Independent reporting by Espace Afrique on 11 November described the ruling as a major judicial victory for Sanusi’s leadership, although the wider leadership dispute remains unresolved, with a substantive hearing reportedly expected on 21 December.
There’s no vacuum in the leadership of TPI as Article 50 of its Constitution states that: “Members of the Executive Bureau whose terms of office have expired shall remain in office until the newly elected members of the Executive Bureau formally assume office”.
Although the ruling has suspended the effect of the Banjul decisions, it should not be misrepresented as a final determination of every issue surrounding the organisation’s leadership.
The legal development follows months of competing claims over the organisation’s leadership, including rival General Assembly processes in Kano and Banjul. Sanusi, who was elected TPI President in 2022, had publicly called for restraint and constitutional conduct even before the latest ruling.
Speaking at the organisation’s September 2026 meeting in Kano, he said: “What we preach is unity and not division, love and not anger, and brotherhood and sisterhood for all of us.”
By contrast, the Banjul gathering subsequently produced the election of Juldeh Sowe, who told a gathering in Freetown that he was committed to peace and cooperation among Fullahs. Those earlier endorsements now sit against a substantially altered legal position.
Espace Afrique reported that supporters of Sanusi believe the ruling would “reinforce the outgoing bureau and avoid disorder”, while the Banjul camp has urged its members to “remain serene” as they await the substantive proceedings. The competing positions underline why all parties must distinguish political support and public recognition from the legal authority to represent an international organisation.
Observers have said that for Juldeh Sowe, the implications might extend beyond the internal contest for TPI leadership. If he continues to present himself as the organisation’s President or Horeejo on the strength of the suspended Banjul decisions, despite the court order, he risks further legal challenges and could undermine the credibility he has built among community leaders, public institutions and international partners.
His political standing could also come under pressure, particularly given the public recognition he received at State House, while his business reputation could face avoidable questions from partners and stakeholders concerned about governance, compliance and respect for judicial decisions.
These are potential reputational and commercial consequences, not findings made by the court. The immediate responsibility is therefore to comply with the order, avoid claims of authority founded on the suspended decisions and pursue any challenge through the appropriate legal process.
The Bamako ruling does not, by itself, resolve every question about TPI’s future leadership, but it has materially weakened the legal basis of the Banjul leadership claim. For an organisation established to promote Fulbe identity, solidarity and development across national boundaries, the way its competing leaders respond to this judicial intervention may prove as consequential as the ruling itself.
Meanwhile, speaking to Juldeh Sowe’s PR0, Silvin Bah confirmed to this press that they had only seen the Bamako Court ruling circulating on social media and had not yet received an official copy of the court order.
More on the issues in subsequent editions
About the Author
