By: Audrey Raymonda John
A three-member tribunal investigating allegations against Justice Alan B. Halloway has dismissed a preliminary objection filed by the defence challenging the panel’s jurisdiction and the constitutionality of its establishment.
The ruling was delivered by Chairman Justice Abdulai Bangurah in the presence of the defendant, his legal team, and State Counsel.
In its decision, the tribunal rejected all issues raised by the defence, including arguments questioning its authority to hear the matter and claims of a breach of natural justice. The panel held that the application lacked merit and dismissed it in its entirety.
The defence had sought to halt proceedings on grounds of want of jurisdiction and alleged procedural irregularities. The dismissal of the application clears the way for the tribunal to proceed with its mandate.
The objection arose from arguments presented during earlier sittings, where Defence Counsel Sulaiman Banja Tejan-Sie challenged the legality of both the tribunal’s establishment and his client’s suspension.
Counsel argued that Justice Halloway was not accorded a fair hearing prior to his interdiction and that the process leading to the formation of the tribunal was unconstitutional and procedurally flawed.
He submitted that the tribunal stemmed from a September 2025 meeting of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC), during which members allegedly resolved to remove a judge of the Superior Court of Judicature. According to the defence, Justice Halloway was neither informed of any disciplinary proceedings nor given the opportunity to respond before his suspension.
The defence also questioned the role of the Chief Justice, who reportedly served both as complainant and Chairman of the JLSC. Counsel argued that this dual role created actual bias and compromised the integrity of the process.
It was further alleged that Justice Reginald Fynn had called for the Chief Justice to recuse himself from deliberations and objected to referring the matter to the President, but his position was overruled.
Additionally, the defence referenced correspondence allegedly written by Justice Fynn to the President, advising against the establishment of the tribunal on the grounds that Justice Halloway had not been granted a fair hearing. Counsel maintained that any complaint forwarded to the President without affording Justice Halloway the right to be heard was legally invalid and rendered the tribunal’s constitution premature and prejudicial.
In response, State Counsel J.A.K. Sesay argued that the Judicial and Legal Service Commission is a constitutional body mandated to investigate complaints and make recommendations to the President.
He informed the tribunal that written submissions had been filed addressing the defence’s concerns and maintained that extensive deliberations were held during the Commission’s meeting.
The State further contended that decisions of the Commission were reached through majority voting rather than by any single individual. Reference was also made to records attributed to the Solicitor General alleging that Justice Halloway had made grave statements indicating he would “misbehave until the Chief Justice resigns,” conduct which the State argued justified the Commission’s action.
Following the dismissal of the preliminary objection, the tribunal adjourned proceedings to 3 March 2026 to continue hearing the substantive matter.