By: Audrey Raymonda John
The tribunal investigating allegations against Justice Alan B. Halloway resumed on Thursday, 19 February 2026, with heated legal arguments over the constitutionality of his suspension and the process that led to the establishment of the panel.
The three-member tribunal, chaired by Supreme Court Judge Justice Abdulai Bangurah and supported by lawyers Robins Mason and Francis Gabidon, was constituted pursuant to Section 137 of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone. It followed a directive issued by President Julius Maada Bio on 15 September 2025, which led to Justice Halloway’s interdiction by the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC).
Justice Halloway was suspended from his position as a judge of the Superior Court of Judicature in September 2025, pending disciplinary proceedings into allegations concerning his conduct.
Defence Counsel Sulaiman Banja Tejan-Sie argued that the tribunal’s formation stemmed from a September 2025 meeting of the JLSC, where members allegedly resolved to remove a judge of the Superior Court of Judicature. He contended that his client was never informed of any disciplinary hearing nor given the opportunity to defend himself before being suspended.
He maintained that the removal process was unconstitutional and procedurally flawed. Counsel further submitted that minutes of the Commission’s meeting showed several legal minds had called for a thorough investigation, but alleged that Solicitor General Robert Kowa took “imperial decisions.” He added that concerns about bias were raised during the meeting.
The defence insisted that denying Justice Halloway the right to be heard rendered the complaint submitted to the President procedurally unsound and legally invalid. Counsel argued that any tribunal constituted on such representation was premature, prejudicial, and violated constitutional guarantees of fairness and judicial independence.
A key issue raised was the participation of the Chief Justice, who is reportedly both the complainant and Chairman of the JLSC. Counsel argued that this dual role created actual bias. He referenced claims that Justice Reginald Finn had requested the Chief Justice to recuse himself from the meeting and objected to referring the matter to the President, but his proposal was overruled.
The defence also cited correspondence allegedly written by Justice Finn to the President, expressing concerns about the lack of fair hearing and advising against the tribunal’s establishment.
State Counsel J.A.K. Sesay informed the tribunal that written submissions had been filed addressing the defence’s arguments. He maintained that the JLSC held extensive discussions during its September 2025 meeting and that Justice Halloway was adequately briefed.
He argued that the Commission, composed of judges and lawyers and chaired by the Chief Justice, is a constitutional body mandated to consider complaints and make recommendations to the President. Decisions, he said, were reached through majority voting, not by any single individual.
State Counsel further referenced paragraph six of the Commission’s records, attributed to the Solicitor General, which alleged that Justice Halloway had made grave statements indicating he would “misbehave until the Chief Justice resigns.” Such conduct, the State argued, justified the Commission’s actions.
In reply, Defence Counsel reiterated that the tribunal’s task was to determine whether the process complied with Section 137(5) and (6) of the Constitution. He argued that the State’s own synopsis suggested that the suspension preceded the establishment of the tribunal, raising constitutional concerns about the sequence of actions.
After hearing both sides, the tribunal adjourned the matter to Wednesday, 25 February 2026 for further proceedings.