Why Justice Halloway’s Suspension Is Justifiable
By Mahmud Tim Kargbo
The second suspension of Justice Halloway has triggered sharp debate across Sierra Leone. Some argue that the decision reflects executive interference in the judiciary, while others blame the Chief Justice for political manoeuvring. Yet such claims obscure the central issue: the suspension was a corrective measure, necessary to salvage the battered image of the judiciary and restore public trust in an institution long regarded as compromised.
Justice Halloway, one of Sierra Leone’s most senior judges, has come to symbolise the dysfunctions that have dragged the justice system into disrepute. Persistent complaints about his unprofessional conduct, chronic delays in delivering judgments, and disregard for procedural timelines have not only harmed litigants, but also eroded wider faith in the courts’ ability to dispense justice. In a country where delayed justice frequently amounts to denied justice, such failings are not mere personal shortcomings, but systemic blockages.
A Profile in Decline
Justice Halloway’s legal career spans more than three decades, including service in the High Court and eventual elevation to the Court of Appeal. He presided over several high-profile matters, ranging from complex commercial disputes to politically sensitive cases. At his best, Halloway was praised for his deep knowledge of the law and sharp legal reasoning. Yet over time, his record became overshadowed by long delays in delivering rulings, with some judgments pending for years. For litigants, this was not only a matter of frustration, but of injustice itself.
Shielding the Judiciary from Misplaced Blame
Critics have sought to portray the suspension as an attack on judicial independence, alleging executive manipulation or attributing the decision to the new Chief Justice, Honourable Komba Kamanda. These narratives are misleading. The action originated within the judiciary itself, in response to public complaints and after following due process. The recommendation to the President was the culmination of established internal accountability mechanisms.
The 1991 Constitution is explicit. Section 137(5)–(7) empowers the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) to recommend a tribunal where credible evidence of misconduct exists, while authorising the President to suspend the judge pending the outcome. This is not an intrusion on judicial independence, but a safeguard to protect public trust while guaranteeing fair process (http://www.sierra-leone.org/Laws/constitution1991.pdf).
It is therefore untenable to blame either the Executive or the Chief Justice for taking steps that directly address longstanding concerns. Instead, the suspension reflects a judiciary under new leadership attempting to enforce professional standards and end a culture of impunity.
The Legacy of Judicial Impunity
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), in its final report, identified the corrosive role of judicial misconduct in fueling Sierra Leone’s conflict. It noted: “The perception that Judges and Magistrates were corrupt, that they delayed cases unnecessarily, and that justice could be bought and sold, contributed greatly to the erosion of public confidence in the rule of law and the descent into conflict” (http://www.sierraleonetrc.org).
The TRC urged a cleansing of the judiciary, warning against corruption, inefficiency, and judicial arrogance. More than two decades later, those warnings remain pressing, and Justice Halloway’s record of delay and disregard for professional standards exemplifies the dangers the TRC described.
Audit Service Findings: A Culture of Weak Accountability
The Audit Service Sierra Leone has repeatedly flagged systemic weaknesses within the judiciary, including irregular handling of fines and revenues, non-compliance with financial regulations, and inadequate internal controls. These findings reveal not simply financial lapses, but a culture in which accountability is weak. Justice Halloway’s conduct, particularly his chronic delays in delivering rulings, mirrors the very impunity auditors have warned against (http://www.auditservice.gov.sl).
International and Regional Condemnations
Domestic and international watchdogs have echoed these concerns.
Human Rights Watch has long highlighted “serious deficiencies in the judicial system … extortion and bribe-taking by officials … unprofessional conduct and absenteeism by court personnel,” compounded by widespread delays that deny citizens access to justice (http://www.hrw.org).
The Campaign for Human Rights and Development International (CHRDI) has warned that the judiciary is “deeply troubling … marred by corruption, inefficiency, and political interference,” citing more than 2,000 unresolved cases left pending for over two years (http://www.sierraleonemonitor.com). Such inefficiency is closely associated with Justice Halloway, whose persistent failure to deliver timely judgments has paralyzed litigants and clogged the courts.
Taken together, these institutional critiques, from the TRC, the Audit Service, Human Rights Watch and CHRDI, form a damning record. They demonstrate that Halloway’s suspension is not a political aberration, but a logical response to entrenched failings.
Addressing the Core Problems Behind the Suspension
The suspension of Justice Halloway should be seen not only as a disciplinary measure, but as part of a broader reform strategy:
Judicial Independence: Protecting the Courts from Political Influence
By acting under Section 137 of the Constitution, the JLSC and the President have shown that suspension is a safeguard against misconduct, not an instrument of political control. Chief Justice Kamanda must now continue to shield honest judges from political pressure, while demanding adherence to professional standards.
Tackling Judicial Corruption: Rebuilding Public Trust
The case underscores the need for a transparent complaints mechanism. Citizens must feel able to report misconduct without fear, and disciplinary action must follow, regardless of rank or influence. The suspension sends a clear signal that the judiciary will no longer protect its own at the expense of justice.
Delays in Justice: Reducing Case Backlogs
Justice Halloway’s alleged delays epitomise the culture that has crippled Sierra Leone’s courts. His suspension reinforces the importance of reforms such as digitised case management systems and strict adherence to procedural timelines.
Reforms Under Chief Justice Kamanda
The suspension also aligns with Chief Justice Kamanda’s wider agenda to restore credibility to the judiciary. For years, certain judges, supported by networks of negative minded lawyers, have behaved as though they were above the law, resisting accountability and undermining reform. They now constitute what many describe as an “axis of resistance” against positive change.
By addressing misconduct at the highest levels, Kamanda signals that accountability will no longer be selective. His leadership aims to build a judiciary that is professional, transparent, and accessible to all citizens, irrespective of political or social standing.
A Legal Scholar’s Perspective
Dr Fatu Sesay, a constitutional law expert, notes that while suspensions can appear controversial, they are often vital for reinforcing standards. “The constitution anticipated situations where judges might compromise the integrity of the bench. By providing for temporary suspension pending investigation, it ensures that accountability and fairness go hand in hand. What matters now is that the tribunal conducts its work transparently, so that both the judge’s rights and the public’s trust are preserved.”
Restoring Faith in Justice
The suspension of Justice Halloway is not an attack on judicial independence, it is its defence. Judicial independence does not mean immunity from accountability; it means freedom to act without political or personal bias, bound only by law and professional ethics. When judges betray those standards, independence is preserved not by shielding them, but by holding them to account.
Seen in this light, Halloway’s suspension is both justifiable and necessary. It answers the TRC’s call for accountability, reflects the Audit Service’s concerns about compliance, and responds to watchdog reports on corruption and inefficiency. Most importantly, it offers a step towards restoring public confidence in Sierra Leone’s judiciary.
Looking Ahead: Beyond the Halloway Case
If the suspension is to be meaningful, it must be followed by deeper reforms. The judiciary should introduce a performance monitoring system for judges, enforce stricter timelines for rulings, and digitise case records to reduce manipulation. Training and ethical reorientation for judicial officers should also be prioritised, alongside mechanisms for public feedback and independent oversight.
For too long, the courts have been weakened by judges who considered themselves untouchable. Justice Halloway may be a senior figure, but his old habits have no place in a judiciary striving for renewal. His suspension is a long-overdue signal that Sierra Leone’s justice system is finally serious about reform, and this time, the reforms must extend beyond one man.