The High Court of Sierra Leone has ordered Mr. Kasho Joseph Holland-Cole, Chairman of the Western Area Rural District Council ( WARDC) to publicly retract statements deemed prejudicial to the judiciary, following contempt proceedings arising from an ongoing dispute over the management of No. 2 River Beach, also known as the Sankofa Complex.
The order was issued on Monday, 15 December 2025, by Honourable Justice A. K. Musa at the Main Law Courts in Freetown. The court directed Mr. Holland-Cole, named as the second defendant in the matter, to hold a press conference within three days retracting the statements and to publish the retraction in two local newspapers for three consecutive editions. The judge further ordered that video footage of the press conference and copies of the published retractions be filed with the court as proof of compliance.
The ruling followed contempt proceedings initiated by the applicant, which argued that public statements made by Mr. Holland-Cole after the issuance of a court injunction amounted to conduct capable of undermining the authority and integrity of the judiciary.
Justice Musa sternly warned the Western Area Rural District Council Chairman to desist from making further public comments that could prejudice the pending matter or bring the court into disrepute. He reminded the defendant that Sierra Leone’s judiciary, like judiciaries elsewhere, operates within an appellate framework that allows aggrieved parties to seek redress through lawful channels rather than public commentary. The judge further noted that, as a senior public official, Mr. Holland-Cole was expected to exercise restraint consistent with his office.
The contempt proceedings stem from a substantive civil action brought by the River Development Association, which sought interim and interlocutory injunctions restraining the respondents from trespassing upon, interfering with, or asserting control over the management, revenue collection, infrastructure, and facilities at No. 2 River Beach.
On 18 November 2025, the High Court granted the interlocutory injunction as prayed for, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive action. It was following this ruling that Mr. Holland-Cole addressed a press conference during which remarks were later found by the court to be potentially scandalising.
Under the Local Government Act of 2004, as amended, local councils such as the Western Area Rural District Council are vested with administrative and regulatory responsibilities within their jurisdictions, including environmental management, sanitation, licensing of commercial activities, local revenue collection, and oversight of public amenities. These powers are, however, subject to the Constitution of Sierra Leone, Acts of Parliament, existing leases or concessions, and the decisions and orders of competent courts.
Legal analysts note that where ownership, management rights, or operational control over land or public facilities are contested, councils are legally required to defer to judicial determination. Once a court issues an interim or interlocutory injunction, all parties, including public institutions and elected officials, are bound to maintain the status quo until the matter is finally resolved.
In Sierra Leone, beaches are regarded as public-interest assets, and their control is legally layered. Central government retains authority over land tenure, leases, environmental protection, and national tourism policy, while local councils regulate sanitation, licensing, and approved local revenue collection within their jurisdictions. Private entities or community organisations may lawfully manage beach facilities where valid leases or development agreements exist. Where disputes arise, the courts serve as the final arbiters, and their orders bind all parties equally.
In practical terms, the interlocutory injunction means that management and operational control over No. 2 River Beach remain frozen pending final determination of the case. While the Western Area Rural District Council retains its general statutory functions, it may not override or circumvent the court’s order, and any action inconsistent with the injunction could expose officials to legal sanction.
The Judiciary has reiterated that respect for court orders is fundamental to the rule of law and to the effective functioning of decentralised governance. The substantive case concerning the management and control of No. 2 River Beach remains before the High Court.
