By Mahmud Tim Kargbo
Friday, 27 February 2026
International criminal justice is often measured in verdicts. The indictment announced. The accused in the dock. The sentence pronounced. Yet the durability of accountability is tested not in these climactic moments, but in what follows. When the trials conclude and the headlines fade, institutions either dissolve into memory or evolve into guardians of legacy.
On 26 February 2026, the Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone entered such a moment of evolution. In a formal ceremony at its seat in The Hague, Chief Justice Hon. Justice Komba Kamanda and Justice Fatmatta Bintu Alhadi were integrated into the Court’s judicial roster. In accordance with Rule 14A of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, both jurists delivered a solemn declaration before President Justice Richard Lussick, pledging to discharge their duties independently and impartially.
The proceeding was measured and procedural. Its implications, however, reach into the deeper architecture of hybrid international justice.
From Urgency to Endurance
The Special Court for Sierra Leone was established in 2002 through an agreement between the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone. Conceived amid the aftermath of a brutal civil war, it was mandated to prosecute those bearing the greatest responsibility for serious violations of international humanitarian law and Sierra Leonean law.
Its hybrid structure marked a departure from the purely international ad hoc tribunals of the 1990s. It blended domestic and international judges, prosecutors and legal norms. Its jurisprudence contributed meaningfully to international criminal law, most notably in affirming the accountability of a former head of state in the case of Charles Taylor and in advancing doctrine concerning the recruitment of child soldiers and forced marriage.
Yet as with all tribunals, closure did not signal completion. Sentences required enforcement. Witnesses needed continued protection. Archives demanded preservation. Residual applications and legal questions persisted.
Recognising this, the Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone was established in 2013 as the permanent custodian of the Court’s continuing obligations. It was not a mere administrative successor. It was an institutional acknowledgement that justice extends beyond adjudication.
Recalibrating Hybrid Justice
The integration of Chief Justice Kamanda and Justice Alhadi reflects a recalibration within this residual framework. President Justice Richard Lussick observed during the ceremony that both judges bring more than two decades of experience within Sierra Leone’s judiciary. Their careers have unfolded within the constitutional and socio legal environment that shaped the very conflict the Court was created to address.
In the residual phase, such domestic judicial capital acquires particular importance. Trial proceedings attract scrutiny and resources. Residual functions operate in comparative obscurity, yet they demand exacting standards of legal integrity. Decisions regarding sentence enforcement or the maintenance of protective measures may not command public attention, but they determine whether justice remains credible over time.
By embedding senior national jurists within its structure, the Residual Court narrows the distance between international mandate and domestic legitimacy. It affirms that Sierra Leone is not merely the site of past adjudication, but an active participant in the stewardship of its legal legacy.
Sovereignty and Partnership
Hybrid tribunals occupy a distinctive position within international law. They emerge from sovereign agreement rather than unilateral imposition. The Special Court was founded upon a bilateral accord between Sierra Leone and the United Nations. Its residual mechanism continues that partnership.
The presence of Deputy Ambassador Mrs Asmaa James at the induction ceremony underscored the Government’s continued engagement. Her characterisation of the appointments as a practical application of domestic expertise to an international mandate highlighted an essential truth. Accountability, in this context, is not external supervision. It is collaborative guardianship.
In an era marked by scepticism towards international criminal institutions, such sustained sovereign participation reinforces the legitimacy of residual justice. It demonstrates that post conflict accountability can mature into a shared institutional enterprise rather than remain a transient intervention.
The Ethics of Continuity
Residual courts perform functions that are both technical and ethical. They supervise the enforcement of sentences, often across multiple jurisdictions. They manage archives that constitute the definitive judicial record of atrocity and response. They ensure that protective measures for witnesses remain intact, sometimes decades after testimony was given.
These responsibilities demand judicial restraint, contextual sensitivity and institutional memory. The integration of Chief Justice Kamanda and Justice Alhadi strengthens the Court’s capacity in precisely these domains. Their professional formation within Sierra Leone’s judiciary equips them with a nuanced understanding of the national dimensions of the Court’s legacy.
The archives maintained by the Residual Court are not mere repositories of documents. They are repositories of truth. In societies where narratives of conflict may be contested or politicised, the preservation of an authoritative legal record assumes civilisational importance.
Redefining Justice After Trial
The phrase justice after trial captures a subtle but profound shift in the conception of international criminal law. Accountability is no longer confined to the courtroom drama of prosecution and defence. It encompasses the sustained management of consequences and memory.
The Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone stands as a testament to this expanded understanding. Its work is quieter than that of its predecessor, yet no less consequential. It safeguards the credibility of past judgments and ensures that the principles articulated in those judgments retain practical force.
With the integration of Chief Justice Komba Kamanda and Justice Fatmatta Bintu Alhadi, the Court reinforces its institutional spine. It signals that the guardianship of legal legacy rests not solely in international hands, but in the continued engagement of national judicial leadership.
In the architecture of global accountability, the dramatic trial may capture attention. But it is the disciplined, patient work of residual justice that secures the long arc of the rule of law.
References and Sources
Agreement between the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone on the Establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone, 16 January 2002. https://www.rscsl.org/Documents/EstablishmentAgreement.pdfAttachment.png
Agreement between the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone on the Establishment of a Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone, 11 August 2013. https://www.rscsl.org/Documents/ResidualAgreement.pdfAttachment.png
Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, 2002. https://www.rscsl.org/Documents/Statute.pdfAttachment.png
Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Rule 14A. https://www.rscsl.org/Documents/Rules.pdfAttachment.png
Prosecutor v Charles Ghankay Taylor, SCSL-03-01-A, Appeals Judgment, 26 September 2013. https://www.rscsl.org/Taylor/Appeal/Decision.pdfAttachment.png
Prosecutor v Brima, Kamara and Kanu, SCSL-2004-16-A, Appeals Judgment, 22 February 2008. https://www.rscsl.org/Brima/AppealsJudgment.pdfAttachment.png
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1966, 22 December 2010. https://undocs.org/S/RES/1966(2010)Attachment.png
Antonio Cassese, International Criminal Law, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press, 2013. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/international-criminal-law-9780199579397Attachment.png
Mark Drumbl, Atrocity, Punishment and International Law, Cambridge University Press, 2007. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/atrocity-punishment-and-international-law/Attachment.png
Laura A Dickinson, The Promise of Hybrid Courts, American Journal of International Law, Vol 97, 2003. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3392960Attachment.png
Robert Cryer, Håkan Friman, Darryl Robinson, and Elizabeth Wilmshurst, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, 4th edition, Cambridge University Press, 2019. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/an-introduction-to-international-criminal-law-and-procedure/Attachment.png