By Mahmud Tim Kargbo
A professional institution is judged not only by how it conducts elections, but by how it responds when those elections become contested. The real test of governance begins when competing interests emerge and established procedures are challenged by suspicion and competing interpretations. The debate surrounding the 2026 Annual General Meeting of the Sierra Leone Bar Association is therefore not merely about candidates or electoral outcomes. It is about whether an institution created to uphold legal order will allow its own governing rules to remain the final authority.
The Sierra Leone Bar Association was established with responsibilities extending beyond the selection of officers. Its Memorandum of Association identifies among its objectives the protection of the legal profession, maintenance of professional standards, support for judicial independence, promotion of law reform and protection of fundamental freedoms. These objectives require more than electoral participation. They require an institution capable of disciplined administration, transparent procedures and respect for the constitutional framework that gives it legitimacy.
The Articles of Association provide that framework. Article 19 places management of the Association’s affairs in the hands of the Executive, while Article 29 confirms the powers and duties conferred upon it. Article 30(a) further empowers the Executive to manage and administer the affairs of the Association and pursue its objectives. These provisions do not create unrestricted authority, but they recognise that an elected leadership must have sufficient administrative capacity to ensure the continued functioning of the institution.
That responsibility includes protecting confidence in electoral administration. Article 30(e) empowers the Executive to make rules relating to the affairs of the Association, while Article 32 establishes that only fully paid up members are eligible to vote or contest elections. These provisions operate together. Article 32 determines who qualifies to participate, while Article 30(e) provides the administrative authority necessary to verify and protect that qualification. Electronic registration therefore did not introduce a new electoral condition. It provided a verification safeguard to ensure that an existing right was exercised by those entitled to exercise it.
The present debate followed a press statement issued by Martina Baindu Egbenda on 20 July 2026 titled, “The Executive Must Clarify the Discrepancy Between the Leaked Bank Records and the Electronic Registration Figures.” The statement questioned the difference between approximately 528 members who allegedly paid subscriptions and conference fees before the 29 May 2026 deadline and an electronic registration figure of 674 members reportedly provided by the Executive. It also questioned the legality, necessity and timing of the registration process. Such questions may properly arise within a democratic institution. However, the existence of questions does not by itself establish wrongdoing, and responsibility for proving an allegation remains with the person advancing it.
The suggestion that electronic registration was introduced as an undisclosed last minute requirement is inconsistent with the documented sequence of events. In its General Notice dated 6 July 2026, the Sierra Leone Bar Association informed members who paid their Annual Subscription and Conference Fees on or before 29 May 2026 that official receipt collection and electronic registration for the 2026 AGM, scheduled for 31 July and 1 August 2026, would take place from Monday, 13 July 2026 to Friday, 17 July 2026 between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. daily at the SLBA Secretariat, Special Court Complex, New England Ville, Freetown. Members were required to present valid identification, including a National Passport, National Identification Card, Driver’s Licence or SLBA Identification Card. The procedure was therefore formally communicated before implementation and provided qualifying members with the opportunity to complete the verification process.
The argument that previous elections relied upon official receipts does not prevent the Association from improving its administrative systems. Past practice may provide continuity, but it cannot prevent reasonable reforms designed to strengthen confidence in an important institutional process. A receipt confirms that a financial obligation has been fulfilled. Registration confirms identity, eligibility and participation status. Verification is not a restriction on a right; it is a safeguard designed to protect the integrity of that right.
The reported difference between payment records and registration figures must therefore be examined with precision. A payment record reflects a financial transaction. An electronic registration record reflects completion of an administrative verification process. Unless both figures relate to the same category of members, the same period and the same administrative stag, they cannot automatically be treated as contradictory. A discrepancy may justify clarification, but clarification is not evidence of misconduct and inquiry is not proof of irregularity.
The discussion surrounding the circulation of what has been described as a leaked bank statement requires the same commitment to institutional discipline. Financial transparency is essential, but transparency does not require the uncontrolled publication of every internal financial document outside established governance mechanisms. A bank statement is an internal financial record, while audited accounts represent an institutional accountability process. Article 30(j) authorises the Executive to establish and maintain Association bank accounts, Article 30(k) requires annual accounts to be presented to members, and Article 14 provides that the AGM receives annual accounts and auditors’ reports. Financial oversight therefore belongs within the Association’s constitutional system of reporting, auditing and member scrutiny.
The electoral framework contained in the Articles provides further safeguards for legitimacy. Article 11 provides for the Annual General Meeting, Article 20 provides for annual election of the Executive, Article 31 provides that elections are determined by simple majority, Article 34 requires a poll where more than one candidate is nominated, and Article 35 requires elections to be conducted by secret ballot. These provisions demonstrate that electoral competition within the Association is not governed by individual expectations, but by rules designed to protect fairness and confidence.
A request for accountability has a legitimate place within any democratic institution. However, accountability must be pursued through evidence, fairness and respect for constitutional procedures. The lasting reputation of the Sierra Leone Bar Association will not depend on one election contest or the individuals involved in it. It will depend on whether the institution remains faithful to the principles that give it authority. Elections decide office holders, but institutions survive because rules outlast individuals. When rivalry challenges governance, the answer is not to weaken the rules. The answer is to uphold them. BAR ELECTIONS: RULES MUST PREVAIL OVER RIVALRIES.