Chief Justice Orders Arrest of Senior Lawyer for Contempt During Court Proceedings
On 8 October 2026, Chief Justice Komba Kamanda ordered the arrest of former Attorney-General Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara (JFK) during Supreme Court proceedings concerning the Constitutional Amendment Bill. This incident raises significant concerns about judicial authority and due process in Sierra Leone.
The matter revolves around whether the Supreme Court exercised its power to punish contempt lawfully. JFK was asked to apologise for remarks made the previous day. Although he expressed regret and retracted his statements, the Chief Justice found the apology insufficient. When JFK reportedly asked what he should say, the Chief Justice replied, “Am I the one to tell you what to say?” Following this exchange, the Chief Justice commanded JFK to remove his wig and go to the dock, before ordering police to take him to Pademba Road Correctional Centre.
Before leaving, JFK reportedly declared, “Members of the Bar, I’ll be back.” Observers noted that a proper contempt hearing, including a formal determination of guilt, was not apparent from the events in court. The legality of the contempt proceedings and the conditions leading to his arrest are now in question.
The dock, where an accused person stands during a trial, is not a replacement for a hearing or a formal accusation. If JFK was sent to prison without a fair opportunity to respond to the charges, this could indicate a breach of due process.
Questions remain as to whether the appropriate procedures were followed in the contempt case against JFK. He did not receive clear information on the alleged contempt and was not given a sufficient chance to defend himself before being detained. These issues could make his detention legally questionable.
The principle of ‘nemo judex in causa sua’, meaning no one should judge their own cause, may apply here, suggesting that a judge who is personally involved in a case should consider stepping aside to avoid bias.
If JFK’s detention stemmed from an unlawful order, he may seek various legal remedies, including an application for release or reconsideration of the committal order. However, this depends on the Supreme Court’s original ruling.
The incident underscores the need for judges to exercise their authority with restraint and fairness. While courtroom decorum must be maintained, disagreements or unsatisfactory apologies should not automatically lead to contempt charges and imprisonment.
Overall, the unfolding events pose critical questions about the balance between judicial authority and safeguarding individual rights. It is vital that the courts uphold the law impartially and protect citizens against arbitrary actions.
The eventual resolution of this case is essential for reinforcing the integrity of the judicial system in Sierra Leone, highlighting that no one, including those who administer justice, is above the law.
