By: Audrey Raymonda John
The Supreme Court of Sierra Leone, presided over by Chief Justice Komba Kamanda and four other Justices, has granted the Institute for Legal Research and Advocacy for Justice (ILRAJ) leave to participate in an ongoing constitutional matter as amicus curiae and interested party.
The application was made by Counsel Basata Michael of Michael & Michael Solicitors on behalf of ILRAJ.
The application, filed by Notice of Motion dated September 30, 2026, sought leave for ILRAJ to participate in the proceedings for the limited purpose of assisting the Court with legal submissions on questions of constitutional interpretation.
Before moving the application, Michael expressed gratitude to the Court for granting ILRAJ the opportunity to appear and be heard.
He submitted that admission as amicus curiae was neither a right nor an entitlement, but a privilege carrying a serious responsibility to assist the Court faithfully and independently.
Counsel said ILRAJ was conscious of the importance of the constitutional questions before the Court, particularly given the Court’s role as custodian of the Constitution.
He said the organization approached the matter with the utmost seriousness and respect for the Court’s constitutional role and responsibilities.
Michael told the Court that ILRAJ was not funded by any of the litigating parties and had no pecuniary, financial or other interest in the parties or the outcome of the matter.
He further submitted that the application was timely and would not prejudice any of the parties. Instead, he argued that ILRAJ’s participation would provide the Court with additional legal submissions on issues that had not been sufficiently addressed by the existing parties.
Addressing the Attorney-General’s concern about the specific assistance ILRAJ intended to provide, Michael said the organization would assist the Court through a comparative examination of relevant constitutional provisions.
She explained that the proposed submissions would include a comparative analysis of different constitutional majority formulas and an examination of Section 108(2) (b) within the language and internal structure of the Constitution.
Counsel submitted that this aspect had not been extensively addressed in the submissions of the existing parties.
He identified another area of assistance as the consideration of relevant authorities, judicial scrutiny and the parliamentary proceedings surrounding the Speaker’s constitutional ruling.
Michael argued that the parliamentary proceedings and the Speaker’s constitutional ruling raised distinctive issues which, in his view, had not been extensively addressed by the parties.
The application also sought an order joining ILRAJ as an interested party to the action, pursuant to the relevant provisions of the High Court Rules as applied by the Supreme Court Rules and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.
ILRAJ further sought permission to file and serve a written brief or statement of case confined to the constitutional interpretation questions arising in the matter, together with a list and bundle of authorities, within the time directed by the Court.
In his ruling, Chief Justice Komba Kamanda, having heard counsel for the proposed amicus curiae and interested party, granted the application.
The Court therefore granted ILRAJ leave to participate in the proceedings as amicus curiae and interested party, allowing the organization to make legal submissions on the constitutional questions before the Court.