The key keepers of the laws of the land must not violate its laws: Are Sierra Leone’s Chief Justice and Attorney General violating the laws of our land? BAMIDALE SHORUNKEH-SAWYERR Every citizen must be subject to the Rule of Law. The realization of an effective Rule of Law is achieved through an effective, impartial, reliable and fair judiciary. The rule of law refers to a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated...It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers,...legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency.” (UN). In Sierra Leone, Judicial authority is vested in the Judiciary by the provisions of Section 120 of the Constitution. The section states that: “The Judicial Power of Sierra Leone shall be vested in the Judiciary of which the Chief Justice shall be the Head.” Clearly, the position of the Chief Justice is a Protected Office. Therefore the holder’s tenure is secured allowing same to carry out sensitive duties which need to be performed without fear of political pressure or public sentiment. The holder must never be afraid to think that his decision one way or the other may result in the loss of his job. The law usually fixes the tenure in a Protected Office using a term of years, the official’s age or a defining event, including but limited to misconduct, for instance. Protected tenure should be respected as it is an important safeguard to the rights and liberties of the people. A protected official must stay in office notwithstanding government change. However, the holder of the Protected Office must respect the end date of his tenure, the constitution being the guide. He must not seek to extend his stay in office. He must obey the law which maintained him in office and guaranteed his unhindered functioning when it now dictates he must go as much as he respected it when it protected his stay. Obeying the law in a round and complete manner entrenches the rule of law. Disobeying parts of the law merely demonstrates and helps perpetuate the possibility of impunity. The holder of a Protected Office who stays longer than his tenure ceases to serve the people and loses legitimacy. He now serves those whose manipulation makes it possible for him to stay in office. He knows fully well that his continued stay lies with them and their ability to further manipulate for him to stay on still. His decisions can no longer be expected to be conscience bound nor can the people be assured of his professionalism. His office is one that requires a protected tenure and if he now holds the office without the protected tenure it must follow that the office has lost its integrity and the holder cannot function at his best. The diehard determination of the current Chief Justice, and her backers, the Attorney General chief amongst them, on her continuity in office is completely unconstitutional and a brazenly disgraceful. The Constitution, which created this office, has no ambiguity in respect of when to vacate the position. Section 137 unambiguously imposes an obligation on Judges of the Superior Court of Judicature (of which the Chief Justice is very much part of, in fact the Head) to vacate office on the attainment of 65 years. 137. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a Judge of the Superior Court of Judicature shall hold office during good behavior. (2) A person holding office as a Judge of the Superior Court of Judicature— a. may retire as a Judge at any time after attaining the age of sixty years; b. shall vacate that office on attaining the age of sixty-five years. (3) Notwithstanding that he has attained the age at which he is required by the provisions of this section to vacate his office, a person holding the office of a Judge of the Superior Court of Judicature may continue in office after attaining that age, for a period not exceeding three months, to enable him to deliver judgment or do any other thing in relation to proceedings that were commenced before him previously thereto. It appears the Chief Justice has reached and possibly passed this age as provided by the cited sections of the constitution. I don’t understand why the Attorney General argues that it is matter for the Supreme Court to decide. Why so? Is there any ambiguity in those provisions that require a special Supreme Court panel, of which the Chief Justice is the head, to determine her own case? Honestly, would the Chief Justice rule against herself? The keepers of the laws of the land must not put themselves above the law. These two contrasting quotes from the world’s strongest woman by many accounts should help provide some sober insight for our dear Chief Justice. The attitude must not be: “To those waiting with bated breath for.... the U-turn, I have only one thing to say: You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning.” Rather, the attitude should be: “Disciplining yourself to do what you know is right and important, although difficult, is the highroad to pride, self-esteem, and personal satisfaction.” Margaret Thatcher.
Posted on: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:15:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015