Dr. Sylvia Olayinka Blyden has criticised the General Legal Council (GLC) for asking the Supreme Court to reconsider the custodial punishment imposed on senior lawyer Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara, popularly known as JFK, following a contempt of court incident.
In a press statement dated Sunday, October 11, 2026, Blyden argued that the Council’s appeal for leniency contradicts its responsibility to regulate professional conduct and enforce ethical standards among legal practitioners.
The GLC, in a statement issued on October 8, condemned Kamara’s conduct during proceedings relating to the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Act, 2025, describing his exchanges with the Supreme Court bench as “quite discourteous and misrepresentative of the legal profession.”
However, the Council also appealed to the Supreme Court to reconsider the custodial punishment, citing the need to maintain a good working relationship between the Bar and the Bench. made the appeal in a statement authorised by its Chairman, Ibrahim Kanneh, and signed by its Secretary, Victor Idrissa Lansana.
Blyden said the Council’s intervention failed to distinguish between punishment for contempt of court and professional disciplinary proceedings, which she described as separate matters.
She further argued that the GLC had no statutory mandate to influence the Supreme Court’s exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, referring to Sections 120(3) and 120(5) of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone.
The former presidential aspirant also questioned whether the Council would have made the same appeal if the lawyer involved were an ordinary practitioner rather than a prominent politician.
Blyden called on the GLC leadership to demonstrate consistency in enforcing professional standards, regardless of a lawyer’s political standing.
Kamara, a former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, was detained on October 8 after the Supreme Court ruled that his response to a demand for an apology over remarks made during the constitutional proceedings was inadequate. The dispute arose during hearings concerning challenges to the passage of the 2025 constitutional amendment legislation.
The Supreme Court subsequently adjourned the constitutional proceedings to Tuesday, October 13, 2026. The substantive case concerns the legal requirements for passing the constitutional amendments.