Lawyers Question Constitutionality of Justice Halloway Tribunal Appointments

Lawyers Question Constitutionality of Justice Halloway Tribunal Appointments

The Sierra Leone Lawyers' Society has formally questioned the constitutional eligibility of the three individuals recently sworn in to the tribunal investigating alleged misconduct by Honourable Justice Allan B. Halloway, JSC. 

In a statement released on January 10, 2026, the Society not only expressed concern over the three-month delay in convening the tribunal, which could impact fair trial rights and public confidence, but also highlighted potential breaches of the 1991 Constitution regarding the appointments.

Central to the Society's concern is Section 137(5)(a) of the Constitution, which mandates that tribunal members must be "persons qualified to hold or have held office as a Justice of the Supreme Court.” The Lawyers’ Society asserts that Honourable Justice A.M. Bangura, JSC, is ineligible as a sitting Supreme Court Justice, and therefore neither "qualified to hold" nor having "held" the office in the context of the provision. 

Furthermore, Messrs. Oladipo Robin-Mason and Francis Gabbidon are deemed constitutionally ineligible because they have exceeded the mandatory retirement age for judges and have never served on the Supreme Court.

While acknowledging President Julius Maada Bio's stated commitment to a "just and decisive hearing," the Society cautioned that proceeding with ineligible members risks undermining due process and public trust. 

The Lawyers’ Society urged the Office of the President to promptly reconsider the appointments to ensure constitutional compliance and safeguard the integrity of the process, emphasising the principle that "Justice should not only be done; it must be seen to be done.” 

The Society stressed the critical importance of these constitutional issues, indicating that administrative or judicial intervention may be necessary.