When the Law Forgets the People: Jurisprudence, Legisprudence and Demosprudence in Sierra Leone
By Yoni Emmanuel Sesay
Despite having a Constitution, a legislative body, and a functioning court system, many in Sierra Leone question whether the law truly serves the people. While governmental institutions remain, public trust in the law’s protective role is eroding.
Sierra Leone isn’t lacking laws; we have statutes and a legal profession. The troubling issue is whether these frameworks effectively fulfil their intended purposes. Are laws thoughtfully created? Are judicial decisions based on sound principles? Can ordinary citizens exercise their rights?
Professor Upendra Baxi’s essay, “Demosprudence versus Jurisprudence,” offers a philosophical basis for these reflections on Sierra Leone’s legal landscape. His analysis introduces three concepts: jurisprudence, legisprudence, and demosprudence.
Jurisprudence deals with how laws are understood and applied. It questions whether judicial decisions stem from sound reason or personal bias. Legisprudence focuses on the legislative process, asking if laws are made through careful consideration and constitutional adherence. Demosprudence, emphasising the role of the public, examines how well legal institutions allow citizens to partake in democracy and challenge injustices.
These ideas, although academic, impact citizens’ lives directly—affecting detained individuals, families lacking legal representation, and voters who feel ignored after elections. Beyond simply having authority, the challenge for constitutional governance is exercising that authority fairly and for the public good.
Sierra Leone’s 1991 Constitution outlines governmental framework and rights but relies on the integrity of those interpreting it. For example, while Parliament may pass laws, constitutional changes require more scrutiny, a distinction highlighted by the ongoing debate over the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2025/2026.
Legisprudence is crucial here. Parliament should not just rubber-stamp decisions but engage in thorough debates to assess the necessity and legality of proposed laws. However, party loyalty can hinder this independence, leading to poor-quality lawmaking.
Similarly, the judiciary must uphold principles of justice and ensure fairness in its decisions, which affect not only the immediate parties but the wider society. The Indian Supreme Court’s approach shows that judicial activism can enhance rights but can also blur the lines of institutional authority.
In Sierra Leone, we must guard against treating judicial intervention as good or bad in itself; it’s about whether decisions are based on sound constitutional principles. We cannot afford to see judicial powers as unlimited, nor should we shield the judiciary from accountability.
As the public interfaces with the law, it is crucial that legal rights are accessible and meaningful. We must confront barriers that prevent ordinary citizens from seeking justice, particularly those from vulnerable communities. How our procedures promote or hinder access to justice remains essential.
Following the appointment of Justice Nicholas Colin Browne-Marke as Chairman of the Law Reform Commission, there’s an opportunity to assess not just outdated laws but the overall functioning of our legal institutions. Why do cases face delays, and are remedies truly effective?
Consultations should extend to various community voices beyond just legal professionals, as their experiences reveal flaws in the system. Laws should serve the public, which is the foundation of our constitutional duty.
Ultimately, jurisprudence, legisprudence, and demosprudence are interconnected aspects of governance. Parliament must produce laws worthy of public respect, courts must issue judgements that inspire trust, and citizens need avenues to engage meaningfully with their governance.
When Parliament prioritises majority power, judicial authority lacks coherent reasoning, or the executive treats constitutional limits as merely suggestions, public disconnection grows. It’s imperative to remind ourselves that the Constitution exists to protect not only those who govern but especially those governed.
Legal frameworks should resonate in the experiences of everyday citizens. We need to revive public confidence before our trust in the law diminishes further. The Constitution should be a living document in familiar dealings between citizens and the state, ensuring that the law indeed remembers the people.
