Lawyers’ Society Challenges Eligibility of Tribunal Members Investigating Supreme Court Judge

The Lawyers’ Society of Sierra Leone has formally challenged the composition of a newly sworn-in tribunal tasked with investigating alleged misconduct by Supreme Court Judge, Justice Allan B. Halloway.

In a press statement released on Saturday, January 10, 2026, the Society raised serious constitutional concerns regarding the three individuals appointed by President Julius Maada Bio to oversee the investigation.

The Society argues that the appointments violate Section 137(5)(a) of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone, which requires tribunal members to be “persons qualified to hold or have held office as a Justice of the Supreme Court.”

The Society claimed that Justice A.M. Bangura, one of the sitting judges, is ineligible. They argued that the law applies only to those “qualified to hold” (meaning potential candidates) or those who “have held” (retired justices) the office, not those currently occupying it.

The group asserts these two individuals are ineligible because they have exceeded the mandatory retirement age of 65 for judges. They pinned their argument to Section 137(2) of the Sierra Leone Constitution which said judges above 65 years are ineligible to hold that office.

Furthermore, the Lawyers’ Society also highlighted a significant delay in the proceedings, noting that it took over three months from Justice Halloway’s initial suspension to swear in the tribunal. The group warned that this delay, combined with the appointment of “ineligible” members, could undermine fair trial rights and the rule of law.

“Justice should not only be done; it must be seen to be done,” the society said.

The statement concluded with a respectful urge to the Office of the President to reconsider these appointments. The Society maintained that proceeding with the current tribunal would be a departure from due process and would undermine President Bio’s stated goal of a “just and decisive hearing.”