The detention and pre-trial status of Lansana Dumbuya, Secretary General of the All People’s Congress (APC), has sparked a debate that goes beyond the specifics of the charges against him. It has become a flashpoint for questions about constitutional rights, judicial discretion, and the intersection of politics and law in Sierra Leone.
At the center of this debate is a fundamental principle: the presumption of innocence.
Section 23 of the 1991 Constitution guarantees protection from arbitrary arrest and detention and affirms that every person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Bail, as a constitutional right, is a key mechanism to ensure that liberty is not denied before a court has tested the merits of the allegations.
Support for this perspective comes from unexpected quarters. Former SLPP minister and flagbearer aspirant Ali Kabba has publicly argued that bail is a constitutional safeguard, not an acquittal or political concession. “While condemning actions we may find objectionable, we must avoid the pitfalls of emotional response,” Kabba said. “Let Dumbuya be granted bail while his matter proceeds before the courts. Bail is not acquittal. Bail is not endorsement. Bail is a constitutional safeguard. It affirms due process and respect for the rule of law.”
Civil society voices have added legal weight to these arguments. Senior lawyer and activist Basita Michael emphasised that rights must be universal, not selective. “Rights are not reserved for people we agree with,” Michael said. “Once a right becomes selective, it stops being a right at all.” His remarks highlight a key concern: in politically sensitive cases, pre-trial detention can be weaponised, undermining trust in the judiciary.
Lawyers representing Dumbuya have also weighed in. Lead defence counsel Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara criticised the handling of Dumbuya’s recent court appearance, which was abruptly adjourned amid security concerns. Kamara argued that the courts must maintain procedural clarity and fairness, even under intense political and public pressure.
Taken together, these perspectives illustrate a broader point: law is not a moral referendum or a political scoreboard. Constitutional safeguards like bail exist to protect individuals from punitive measures before guilt is established, regardless of political affiliation.
The stakes are high. If bail is denied without clear statutory justification, courts risk appearing partial or politically influenced. If bail is granted where legal thresholds are met, critics often misinterpret it as weakness or favouritism. Neither outcome should undermine the principle that the judiciary operates independently and consistently.
The Dumbuya case is not just about one politician or one set of allegations. It is a test of Sierra Leone’s commitment to constitutionalism, judicial integrity, and the rule of law. The voices of Kabba, Michael, and Kamara serve as reminders that protecting procedural fairness is essential for democratic stability – and that rights, once applied selectively, are difficult to restore.
How Sierra Leone navigates Dumbuya’s bail and pre-trial process will reverberate beyond the courtroom. It will signal whether constitutional safeguards apply equally to all, and whether the 1991 Constitution can serve as a genuine shield for liberty, especially in politically charged moments.
