1 Comment
The Lawyers’ Society of Sierra Leone has strongly condemned Parliament’s decision to remove Auditor General Madam Lara Taylor-Pearce.
In a press statement released on December 21st, the Society expressed deep dismay over the process, citing concerns about procedural irregularities and potential violations of the Constitution.
The statement highlighted allegations that Parliament failed to provide adequate notice to members before the vote and that several members were absent from the country at the time of the decision.
The Society argued that the removal of the Auditor General requires a two-thirds majority of all Parliament members, not just those present, as stipulated in the Constitution. They expressed disagreement with the Speaker’s interpretation of the constitutional requirements.
The Lawyers’ Society emphasized the importance of upholding fairness and justice in parliamentary proceedings. They expressed concern about the potential impact of this decision on the independence of crucial oversight institutions like the Auditor General’s Office, which is designed to check executive power.
“Parliament has a sacred duty to uphold fairness and justice in its proceedings. The apparent haste to remove the Auditor General, without ensuring the necessary procedural propriety, is deeply concerning.
“The Society is particularly troubled by the implications of this decision for the independence of offices designed to check executive power. If the Auditor General, who enjoys protections akin to judges of the Superior Court of Judicature, can be removed under such questionable circumstances, we fear for the future independence of our judiciary.” the statement said in part.
The statement concluded with a call for Parliament to reconsider its decision and adhere to its own established procedures. The Society urged citizens and civil society organizations to hold their representatives accountable and demanded transparency in this matter.
They also appealed to the international community to support good governance and safeguard institutions that check governmental excesses.
I am not sure whether “Singapor” was “deploying his teaching skills” or “yuki yuki skills” to illustrate the difference between “of” and “in.” But one thing is certain, he could never have been an English language teacher. A word can carry different meaning. Can Singapor try distinguishing between “members IN a team” and “members OF a team?”