The Sierra Leone Lawyers’ Society has raised constitutional objections to the composition of the tribunal appointed to investigate alleged misconduct by Honourable Justice Allan B. Halloway, JSC, calling on President Julius Maada Bio to reconsider the appointments.
In a statement issued on 10 January 2026, the Society expressed concern that the tribunal, as constituted, does not comply with the requirements of the 1991 Constitution, warning that proceeding with an ineligible panel could undermine due process and public confidence in the judicial disciplinary system.
Central to the Society’s objection is Section 137(5)(a) of the Constitution, which requires that members of such a tribunal must be persons “qualified to hold or who have held office as a Justice of the Supreme Court.” The Society argues that none of the three appointees meets this constitutional test.
The first objection concerns Honourable Justice A.M. Bangura, SC, a serving Justice of the Supreme Court. According to the Society, the constitutional provision was intended to apply to retired Supreme Court justices or persons otherwise eligible for appointment but not currently serving. It maintains that a sitting justice does not fall within either category and is therefore constitutionally barred from serving on the tribunal.
The Society’s second objection is directed at Messrs. Oladipo Robin-Mason and Francis Gabbidon. It states that both men have exceeded the mandatory retirement age of 65 years prescribed for judges under Sections 137(2)(a) and (b) of the Constitution. As neither has previously held office as a Justice of the Supreme Court, and neither can now be appointed due to age, the Society contends that they are constitutionally ineligible to serve on the tribunal.
In addition to the eligibility concerns, the Lawyers’ Society criticised the delay in constituting the tribunal, noting that more than three months elapsed between Justice Halloway’s suspension and the swearing-in of the panel. It warned that prolonged delays risk infringing fair-trial guarantees, subjecting the affected judge to undue uncertainty, and weakening public trust in the disciplinary process.
While acknowledging President Bio’s publicly stated commitment to ensuring “a just and decisive hearing,” the Society cautioned that a tribunal it considers unconstitutional would compromise the rule of law and expose the process to potential legal challenge.
The Society urged the Office of the President to review the tribunal’s composition to ensure strict compliance with both the letter and spirit of the Constitution and to safeguard the credibility of any eventual findings.
The statement concluded by invoking the maxim:
“Justice should not only be done; it must be seen to be done.”
Although no immediate litigation was announced, the Society framed the issue as one of serious constitutional importance, indicating that failure to address the concerns administratively could result in judicial intervention.
