Lawyers’ Society Flags Constitutional Concerns Over Justice Tribunal

By Mo Hamad Kargbo

The Lawyers’ Society of Sierra Leone has called for the immediate reconstitution of a tribunal established to investigate alleged misconduct by Honourable Justice Allan B. Halloway, JSC, citing what it describes as serious constitutional violations that could jeopardize due process and erode public confidence in the judiciary.
In a press statement issued on 10 January 2026, the Society expressed concern over the recent swearing-in of the tribunal, noting that the action came more than three months after Justice Halloway was suspended from office. According to the Society, the prolonged delay in constituting the tribunal raises fundamental questions about fairness, procedural propriety, and the right to a timely hearing.
Beyond the delay, the Society’s primary objection centers on the constitutional eligibility of the tribunal’s members, arguing that their appointments do not comply with Section 137(5)(a) of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone, which governs the composition of tribunals established to investigate superior court justices.
That provision stipulates that members of such a tribunal “shall be persons qualified to hold or have held office as a Justice of the Supreme Court.” The Society contends that this requirement has not been met.
Specifically, the Society questioned the appointment of Honourable Justice A.M. Bangura, JSC, who is currently serving as a Justice of the Supreme Court. It argued that the constitutional phrase “qualified to hold or have held office” does not extend to sitting justices, but rather refers to individuals who are eligible for appointment yet not in office, or retired justices who have previously served on the Supreme Court.
The Society further challenged the eligibility of the two other tribunal members, Mr. Oladipo Robin-Mason and Mr. Francis Gabbidon, on the grounds that both have exceeded the mandatory retirement age of 65 for judges, as provided under Section 137(2)(a) and (b) of the Constitution. It maintained that neither individual has previously served as a Supreme Court justice, nor are they constitutionally qualified to do so due to age limitations, thereby rendering them ineligible to sit on the tribunal.
According to the Society, proceeding with a tribunal composed of members who do not meet constitutional requirements would amount to a serious breach of due process and a deviation from the rule of law, regardless of the intent behind the investigation.
While acknowledging President Julius Maada Bio’s publicly stated commitment to ensuring a “just and decisive hearing” in the matter, the Society warned that such an outcome cannot be achieved if the foundational legal framework of the tribunal is flawed.
“Proceeding with the investigation with persons who are constitutionally ineligible to be members of the tribunal would undermine the ‘just and decisive hearing’ anticipated by His Excellency,” the statement emphasized.
The Lawyers’ Society has therefore urged the Office of the President to urgently review and reconsider the tribunal’s composition, stressing that strict adherence to constitutional provisions is essential not only for the protection of the rights of the affected justice, but also for maintaining public trust in Sierra Leone’s judicial system.
The statement concluded by invoking a long-standing principle of justice:
“Justice should not only be done; it must be seen to be done.”