Serious allegations of judicial misconduct have emerged from Makeni High Court over a civil case involving a property dispute valued between $450,000 and $500,000.

The controversy centers on a process that appears not only rushed but also prearranged—raising fundamental questions about the integrity of due process in such high-stakes matters.

Petitioner Sheik Mustapha Fofanah alleges that even before Justice Bawor arrived, he witnessed troubling irregularities suggesting collusion. According to Fofanah, the opponent lawyer’s apprentice delivered a written document to the court registrar containing a list of files, each registered by name and assigned a predetermined status such as “ruling,” “to be struck out,” or “to be ruled on.” Shockingly, Fofanah’s own file was already marked “ruling” despite the judge’s absence.

Fofanah immediately informed his lawyer—who was seated with colleagues awaiting Justice Bawor’s arrival—about this prearranged status. His counsel, along with his colleagues, maintained that the matter was far from ready to be ruled upon. Essential steps such as thorough argumentation, site inspections, and addressing statements by counsel remained outstanding. The premature status assignment, based solely on Fofanah’s intelligence, left them all deeply shocked.

Related News

The public is highly concerned about the tactics and maneuvers employed by Justice Bawor. Notably, he issued a directive that required all filings to be submitted by 5:00 PM on 13 February, yet he proceeded to rule on the matter on 14 February after reportedly taking the file with him to his house at 3:00 PM—well ahead of the scheduled time. How can a civil matter involving a property valued at $500K and above be handled in such a biased and self-serving manner?

Adding to the controversy is the fact that a case of this magnitude cannot reasonably be processed within such a truncated timeframe. High-value disputes typically demand a comprehensive judicial process that spans several months, allowing for detailed hearings, evidence presentation, and deliberations. Instead, the matter was rushed from filing on 13 February to a ruling on 14 February, with the judge citing his imminent departure from the jurisdiction as justification for the expedited process. If time is an issue, the case should be deferred to an incoming judge rather than hurriedly concluded.

Justice Bawor further claimed he was not informed of the filing until as late as 11:00 PM the previous night—a claim that raises serious questions regarding proper notification protocols and the administration of justice. Should filings be directed solely to the office of the registrar rather than the judge’s personal domain? And is it acceptable for the complainant to be expected to ensure the judge is informed at such an unconventional hour? These procedural lapses, along with the prearranged file statuses, hint at disturbing collusion between the judge and the opposing counsel.

Legal experts, human rights advocates, and concerned citizens are now calling on the Attorney General and the chief justice to launch a thorough investigation into these irregularities. Human rights institutions in Sierra Leone are urging swift action to protect citizens’ property from unlawful seizures executed through manipulated legal tools. They warn that allowing such practices not only endangers individual property rights but also stifles the developmental ambitions of our youth and investors—discouraging investment in initiatives worth $500K and above.

Furthermore, the petitioner’s legal team remains in shock after the outcome of the matter precisely matched the intelligence provided by Sheik Mustapha Fofanah prior to the judge’s arrival. This uncanny alignment reinforces concerns that Justice Bawor’s judgment was not based on an impartial review of the case but was rather predetermined. His ruling, delivered under questionable circumstances, continues to be a subject of intense scrutiny.

This case stands as a stark reminder that justice must be administered with fairness, transparency, and due process. The rushed ruling and prearranged outcomes suggest that personal interests and collusion may have taken precedence over the impartial adjudication of a matter that significantly impacts the economic development and future of Sierra Leone.

The call for accountability is growing louder, with many demanding that these troubling practices be rooted out to restore public trust in the judicial system.