Sierra Leone Telegraph: 12 October 2026:
The unfortunate events of 7 and 8 October 2026, involving the Chief Justice of Sierra Leone, Justice Komba Kamanda, and former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara (JFK), during the Supreme Court proceedings concerning the Constitutional Amendment Bill, raise fundamental questions about judicial authority, contempt of court, constitutional rights and due process.
The issue is not whether the Supreme Court possesses the power to punish contempt. Undoubtedly, it does. The real question is whether that power was exercised in accordance with the law and the Constitution of Sierra Leone.
WHAT IS CONTEMPT OF COURT?
Contempt of court is conduct that unlawfully obstructs, interferes with or undermines the administration of justice, including deliberate disobedience of lawful court orders. There are two principal forms.
Civil contempt
Generally, concerns disobedience of a court order, particularly where compliance is being sought.
Criminal contempt
Concerns conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice and may attract punishment, including imprisonment.
Contempt may also occur in facie curiae (in the face or presence of the court) or ex facie curiae (outside the immediate presence of the court).
Contempt committed in the face of the court may be dealt with summarily. However, summary proceedings do not mean arbitrary proceedings. Fairness remains indispensable.
WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAY?
Three constitutional provisions are particularly important. Section 120(5) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone, 1991, expressly empowers the Superior Court of Judicature to commit persons for contempt.
Section 17(1)(c) permits deprivation of liberty in execution of a lawful superior court order made on grounds of contempt.
Section 23 protects the right to a fair hearing, subject to the applicable constitutional provisions.
Therefore, the Chief Justice and Supreme Court possess contempt jurisdiction, but its exercise must remain within the boundaries of legality, fairness and judicial impartiality. The existence of judicial power does not justify its arbitrary exercise.
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED TO JFK?
According to the account of the courtroom events, JFK was required to apologise and retract remarks made during the proceedings of 7 October 2026.
On 8 October, he apologised and indicated that he retracted his statement if it had offended the Chief Justice and the Bench. The Chief Justice considered the apology inadequate. JFK then reportedly asked: “My Lord, tell me what you want me to say and I will say it.”
The Chief Justice responded, in substance: “Am I the one to tell you what to say?”
As JFK continued, stating, “I am entirely in your hands,” the Chief Justice ordered him to remove his wig and proceed to the dock. JFK reportedly removed his wig and was preparing to comply when the Chief Justice ordered the police to take him to Pademba Road Correctional Centre.
Before leaving, JFK shouted: “Members of the Bar, I’ll be back.”
The critical observation is that no distinct contempt hearing, determination of guilt or opportunity to defend the contempt allegation was visibly demonstrated in the sequence described.
This does not conclusively establish that no legally sufficient proceedings occurred. That question must ultimately be determined from the complete official court record.
WHAT IS THE DOCK, AND WHY WAS JFK ORDERED INTO IT?
The dock is the designated place in a courtroom where an accused person ordinarily stands or sits during criminal proceedings. Its purpose is to identify the person answering an accusation and facilitate the orderly conduct of proceedings.
A lawyer appearing professionally before the court ordinarily addresses the court from the Bar, not the dock. Where a lawyer is personally accused of contempt, the court may direct that lawyer to leave the Bar and stand in the dock to answer the allegation. However, three distinctions are essential:
- Entering the dock does not establish guilt.
- Removing a lawyer’s wig does not constitute a finding of contempt.
- Failure to enter the dock does not, by itself, invalidate proceedings; the decisive issue is whether the legally required process was observed.
The dock is a physical place in the courtroom, not a substitute for a hearing, a finding of guilt or a lawful committal order.
If JFK was ordered into the dock to answer an allegation but was sent directly to prison before being afforded a legally sufficient opportunity to answer it, serious questions of procedural fairness arise.
WAS DUE PROCESS OBSERVED?
Under Order 51 of the High Court Rules 2007, contempt proceedings may involve an application supported by affidavit, but the Court also retains power to act on its own motion. Rule 5 specifically addresses contempt committed in the face of the court.
These High Court provisions illustrate the recognised procedural safeguards, although they do not automatically govern proceedings before the Supreme Court.
A fair contempt process ordinarily requires identification of the alleged misconduct, an opportunity to answer it, an impartial determination and a lawful order specifying any punishment.
The fact that a judge personally witnessed the alleged misconduct may justify an expedited procedure, but it does not necessarily eliminate the requirement of fairness. In JFK’s case, the following questions remain unanswered:
First: What precise conduct constituted the alleged contempt?
Second: Was JFK informed of the allegation and given an adequate opportunity to defend himself?
Third: Was there a formal finding of contempt before the order for detention?
Fourth: What was the legal basis, duration and recorded form of the committal order?
Fifth: Was immediate detention necessary and proportionate, particularly after an apology and attempted retraction?
If these essential safeguards were absent, the legality of the detention becomes seriously questionable.
SHOULD THE CHIEF JUSTICE HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF?
The principle ‘nemo judex in causa sua’ means that no person should be a judge in their own cause. Where a judge becomes personally involved in a confrontation and the alleged contempt is directed at that judge, the question of apparent bias may arise.
This does not mean that every judge confronted with contempt must automatically recuse himself. However, where personal displeasure appears to influence the decision to punish, the interests of justice may require the contempt allegation to be determined by another judge or an appropriately constituted court.
Justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done.
WHAT REMEDIES ARE AVAILABLE TO JFK?
If the detention resulted from a procedurally defective or unlawful contempt order, JFK may consider an application for discharge or variation of the committal order, seeking immediate release; an application for bail or interim release, where legally available; Constitutional redress under Section 28, alleging violations of personal liberty or fair-hearing rights; habeas corpus, where an appropriate court has jurisdiction to examine the legality of the detention; review or setting aside of the contempt decision through an available lawful procedure; appropriate consequential relief, including compensation where legally justified.
The precise remedy must account for the fact that the disputed order originated from the Supreme Court itself.
IS THIS AN ABUSE OF JUDICIAL POWER?
An unlawful or procedurally defective judicial order may constitute an improper exercise of judicial authority. However, it does not automatically establish the criminal offence of abuse of office. That distinction must be maintained.
Nevertheless, judicial independence must never be confused with judicial immunity from constitutional accountability. Judges are entrusted with considerable powers precisely because they are expected to exercise them with restraint, impartiality and fidelity to the law.
Likewise, lawyers must conduct themselves respectfully, professionally and without obstructing proceeding.
THE LAW MUST REMAIN ABOVE EVERYONE
The events involving Chief Justice Komba Kamanda and JFK should serve as an important lesson to the Bench, the Bar and the general public. A judge has the right and responsibility to maintain order in court. A lawyer has the corresponding obligation to respect the court while fearlessly representing the interests of a client.
But courtroom disagreement, professional criticism or an apology considered unsatisfactory must not automatically be equated with contempt deserving imprisonment.
On the account presently available, the detention of JFK raises serious questions concerning due process, impartiality and proportionality. Whether those questions establish legal invalidity must be determined from the complete court record.
The Supreme Court is the guardian of the Constitution, and its authority is strengthened, not weakened, when it demonstrates unwavering respect for the constitutional rights of every person appearing before it.
The ultimate question should therefore be: if the courts are entrusted with protecting citizens against arbitrary deprivation of liberty, who ensures that the courts themselves exercise that power lawfully?
The answer is the Constitution, the rule of law, and the enduring obligation of every judicial officer to administer justice fairly.
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW — NOT EVEN THOSE ENTRUSTED WITH ITS ADMINISTRATION.