By Mahmud Tim Kargbo
Tuesday, 16 June 2026
The greatest danger facing any institution in a moment of crisis is not disagreement itself, but the temptation to rewrite history in order to fit the arguments of the present. Institutions are living structures shaped by decisions, traditions, disputes, reforms, and unresolved questions carried from one generation of leadership to another. When a crisis becomes visible, public debate often searches for a single individual to blame, overlooking the sequence of events that created the conditions for that crisis. The ongoing debate within the Sierra Leone Bar Association reflects this very challenge. The conversation has increasingly focused on the leadership of Madam Tuma Adama Gento – Kamara Esq, yet the history of the Association reveals that many of the tensions now confronting the profession existed before her administration assumed office.
The argument that “power does not change people but reveals them” is often used to explain leadership failures. It is a powerful statement, but it is incomplete when applied to institutional analysis. Power may reveal personal qualities, but history reveals institutional circumstances. A leader can be judged by decisions taken while holding office, but that judgment must also consider the environment inherited upon assuming responsibility. Without that balance, analysis becomes less about truth and more about assigning blame. The Sierra Leone Bar Association, as a professional institution built upon legal principles, deserves a deeper examination than a narrative centred solely on one individual.
The rule of law requires more than criticism of leaders. It requires fairness in the evaluation of institutions and the events that shape them. Lawyers understand better than most that evidence, chronology, and context matter. A legal argument cannot succeed by ignoring inconvenient facts, and neither should an institutional argument. The Bar Association must therefore be examined through the same standards of fairness that lawyers expect courts to apply. The question is not whether Madam Tuma Adama Gento – Kamara Esq should be held accountable for decisions taken during her presidency. She should. The question is whether it is historically accurate to suggest that the fractures within the Association began with her administration.
The chronology indicates otherwise. The present divisions within the Sierra Leone Bar Association developed through a longer process involving disputes over governance, constitutional interpretation, executive authority, and institutional confidence. Those concerns became visible during the previous administration led by Eddinia Michaela Swallow. What began as disagreement within a professional organisation gradually developed into broader questions about how internal democratic processes should operate. The significance of this history is that institutional fractures rarely appear overnight. They are usually the result of unresolved issues that accumulate until they become impossible to ignore.
A major chapter in this history was the legal challenge associated with Julian Cole Esq. The matter arose from concerns regarding the extension of the executive mandate and questions surrounding the constitutional basis for changes affecting the Association’s leadership structure. The dispute was not merely about personalities or electoral competition. It represented a wider institutional question: how should a professional association manage constitutional changes that affect the authority and duration of elected leadership? In any organisation committed to legal principles, such questions naturally require clarity because uncertainty in governance creates uncertainty in legitimacy.
The significance of the Julian Cole Esq matter lies not only in the complaint itself, but also in what followed. The matter was not assigned for hearing and was later withdrawn during the administration of Madam Tuma Adama Gento – Kamara Esq. There was therefore no judicial determination on the substantive questions raised. No court judgment conclusively interpreted the constitutional issues involved. The absence of a determination meant that an important institutional question remained unresolved.
That outcome carries broader implications for professional governance. When disputes involving constitutional interpretation arise within institutions, the existence of a mechanism for resolution is essential. A process that allows grievances to be examined provides confidence even when one side does not prevail. Lord Bingham, in his respected work The Rule of Law, emphasised that access to justice, fairness, and the ability to resolve disputes are central components of legitimate legal systems. His analysis demonstrates that institutions gain strength when their members believe that disputes can be addressed through credible procedures. Reference: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/rule-of-law/
Lon L. Fuller’s The Morality of Law similarly argues that the legitimacy of systems depends upon the integrity of the processes through which rules operate. Fuller’s work remains relevant because professional associations are also governed by expectations of consistency, fairness, and procedural reliability. Where members believe that important questions cannot receive meaningful determination, confidence in institutional processes may weaken. Reference: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780300003482/the-morality-of-law
This is why the unresolved nature of the Julian Cole Esq matter became significant beyond the individuals involved. Had the matter proceeded to determination, it could have provided clarity for both supporters and critics of the disputed arrangement. A judgment would have established guidance and created greater certainty regarding the interpretation of the Association’s governance framework. Instead, the absence of judicial resolution allowed competing views to continue existing within the profession. The later divisions within the Bar must therefore be understood within this broader context.
The events surrounding the 2024 AGM in Kenema did not emerge from a vacuum. They reflected tensions that had developed over time concerning participation, electoral confidence, governance procedures, and institutional trust. By that stage, questions that had existed years earlier had become more visible and more difficult to contain. The controversy surrounding the AGM was therefore not the beginning of the story, but another chapter in an already developing institutional dispute. History matters because it explains why certain disagreements become deeper than ordinary political competition.
The argument that Madam Tuma Adama Gento – Kamara Esq alone created division therefore requires careful examination. An incumbent president must always be accountable for the condition of the institution during her tenure. Leadership carries responsibility, and members are entitled to assess performance, decisions, and outcomes. However, accountability should not become historical revisionism. A leader can inherit institutional weaknesses while still being responsible for how those weaknesses are managed. Both realities can exist at the same time.
The criticism regarding unity and the phrase “One Bar” also requires a broader understanding. Every member of the profession should desire a united Bar, but unity cannot mean ignoring disagreement. A professional institution becomes stronger when members can raise concerns and trust that those concerns will receive fair consideration. True unity is not created by avoiding difficult conversations. It is created when people believe that the systems governing them are legitimate.
The same principle applies to the debate surrounding the Attorney General and the traditional role of Titular Head of the Bar. The office carries historical significance and deserves appropriate professional respect. However, professional tradition must operate alongside institutional independence and constitutional governance. Respect for convention does not remove the responsibility of an association to follow its own rules and procedures. A mature legal profession understands that courtesy and accountability can exist together.
The discussion must also consider the contrast between the incumbent and the challenger. Madam Martina Baidu Egbenda Esq has every right to present herself as a candidate for the presidency of the Sierra Leone Bar Association. Her message of reform, unity, and institutional renewal deserves consideration by members. However, fairness requires recognition that she is contesting from a different position than the incumbent. She is seeking the office for the first time, while Madam Tuma Adama Gento – Kamara Esq is seeking evaluation based on an existing presidential record.
Madam Martina Baidu Egbenda Esq previously served as Treasurer within the administration whose governance arrangements were challenged by Julian Cole Esq. This does not mean she personally carries responsibility for every decision taken by that administration. Leadership accountability must always be individual. However, institutional history cannot be completely separated from those who participated in previous executive structures. A fair assessment must consider both experience and record without unfairly transferring collective responsibility onto individuals.
The argument that one candidate represents unity while the other represents division also requires careful reflection. Unity is not demonstrated only through language. It is demonstrated through consistency, fairness, and a commitment to institutional principles even when circumstances are politically difficult. The history of any organisation contains moments where individuals must decide how strongly they support certain principles. Those decisions become part of the institutional record.
Professor Tom Tyler’s research on procedural justice provides important insight into this issue. In Why People Obey the Law, Tyler explains that people are more likely to accept decisions when they believe the processes producing those decisions are fair, respectful, and legitimate. This principle applies beyond courts and governments. Professional organisations depend on the same foundation because members must trust the systems through which leadership decisions are made. Reference: https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691027568/why-people-obey-the-law
The future of the Sierra Leone Bar Association will not be secured by identifying one person as the source of every problem. Institutions are more complex than individual personalities. They are shaped by collective decisions, institutional cultures, and the willingness of members to confront difficult truths. The Bar’s challenge is therefore not only about leadership. It is about whether the profession can build systems strong enough to survive disagreement.
A credible institution must be willing to examine its own history honestly. It must recognise successes and failures across different administrations. It must apply standards consistently rather than selectively. It must accept that accountability and context are not opposing ideas. They are both necessary for mature institutional evaluation.
The Bar’s history cannot be rewritten. It cannot begin and end with the administration of one individual. The fractures that exist today developed through a longer journey involving unresolved disputes, competing interpretations, and questions about governance that emerged before the current leadership. The responsibility of the profession now is not to erase that history, but to learn from it.
The ultimate test of the Sierra Leone Bar Association will not only be who occupies the presidency. It will be whether the institution can restore confidence through fairness, transparency, and respect for the rule of law. A profession dedicated to justice must also demonstrate justice within its own structures. The future of the Bar depends on its ability to remember its past accurately, confront its challenges honestly, and move forward with institutional wisdom.