By Foday Moriba Conteh
Contrary to widespread reports that Supreme Court Judge, Justice Allan B. Halloway, was suspended simply because he wrote a letter to President Julius Maada Bio accusing the Hon. Chief Justice, Justice Komba Kamanda, of constitutional breaches and human rights violations, fresh investigations by this medium have uncovered the true circumstances behind his suspension.
According to sources, Justice Allan B. Halloway’s suspension was not triggered by his August 11th letter but by a backlog of serious complaints against him some of which date back years. These include:
- Cases that had sat on his desk for over 15 years without judgment,
- Allegations of bribery and extortion, and
- Reports of deliberate delays and questionable practices in handling files.
Investigation revealed that the Chief Justice, in response, directed Justice Allan B. Halloway to clear his backlog of cases. However, Justice Allan B. Halloway failed to comply, a move widely seen as gross insubordination.
Because of this insubordination and public outcry, it was believed that administrative measures were reportedly taken against him. These included:
- Withholding certain statutory allowances,
- Refusal to reimburse medical claims,
- Removal from court panels, and
- Exclusion from active judicial duties.
While Justice Allan B. Halloway portrayed these measures in his petition as violations of his constitutional rights, sources insist they were disciplinary responses to his own alleged failures and misconduct.
In his 11th August 2025 petition letter to President Bio, Justice Allan B. Halloway accused the Chief Justice of:
- Withholding his allowances and blocking his fuel card;
- Forcing him to cover medical bills and vehicle expenses, which he framed as a breach of Section 138(3) of the 1991 Constitution;
- Removing him from court panels, which he described as an “unconstitutional suspension”; and
- Threatening him with disciplinary action in front of other judges.
However, our investigations reveal that while Justice Allan B. Halloway highlighted actions taken against him, he deliberately omitted the context of his alleged insubordination and the serious complaints of misconduct that prompted those actions in the first place.
It was also informed that Justice Allan B. Halloway copied his letter to parties outside the legal framework, contrary to established judicial protocol. The Constitution requires that judges who feel aggrieved by the Chief Justice should petition to the President and the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) not other outside parties.
Upon receiving complaints and reviewing the matter, the JLSC exercised its mandate under Section 137(5) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (1991), which provides that: “If the Judicial and Legal Service Commission presents to the President that the question of removing a Judge of the Superior Court of Judicature, other than the Chief Justice, under subsection (4) ought to be investigated then (a) the President, acting in consultation with the Judicial and Legal Service Commission, shall appoint a tribunal which shall consist of a Chairman and two other members, all of whom shall be persons qualified to hold or have held office as Justices of the Supreme Court.”
Acting on this recommendation, President Bio immediately constituted a tribunal comprising a Chairman and two other Senior Jurists to investigate Justice Allan B. Halloway.
As empowered by Section 137(6) of the Constitution, the President also suspended Justice Allan B. Halloway from duty pending the tribunal’s findings. This was formally conveyed through an official correspondence dated 15th September 2025 (Ref: SF/BF 33/201/01) issued by the Secretary to the President, Barba B. Fortune.
The letter made it clear: “…His Excellency the President hereby suspends you as Judge of the Superior Court of Judicature with immediate effect until the outcome of a Disciplinary Tribunal instituted to investigate your conduct.”
From the foregoing it could be deduced that Justice Allan B. Halloway’s suspension was not a reaction to his letter, but rather the outcome of:
- Longstanding allegations of misconduct,
- His failure to obey lawful instructions from the Chief Justice and
- A recommendation by the JLSC for a tribunal to investigate him.
By framing his suspension solely as retaliation for his letter, Justice Allan B. Halloway, it is believed that he presented a one-sided narrative, omitting his own failings and the legal basis upon which the President acted.
It could be asserted that Justice Allan B. Halloway’s suspension is therefore a matter of due process and accountability, not victimization. The Constitution was followed to the letter: complaints were reviewed, the JLSC advised, a tribunal was set up and the President lawfully suspended him pending investigation.
The final word now rests with the tribunal, which will determine whether Justice Allan B. Halloway will be removed from office or reinstated.
When this medium contacted Justice Allan B. Halloway via his mobile phone to solicit his comments on the matter, as contained in the aforementioned article he responded copiously. See the next page for his response published verbatim:
HON. JUSTICE ALLAN B. HALLOWAY’S RESPONSE
MY RIGHT TO REPLY: RESPONSE TO THE CALABASH NEWSPAPER
FROM: THE HON. MR. JUSTICE ALLAN B. HALLOWAY JSC
DATE: 25th September 2025
TO: The Editor, The Calabash Newspaper
SUBJECT: Re: Right to Reply – Allegations and Report on Your Suspension
I acknowledge your letter and thank you for your professionalism in offering me the right to reply, in keeping with the tenets of fair journalism and the IMC Code of Practice. I expect that my responses will be published in full and with complete accuracy, and I reserve the right to a further reply should any part of my response be altered, misrepresented, or published out of context.
I categorically and unequivocally reject the baseless allegations contained in your proposed article. The narrative you have been provided is a malicious fabrication, designed to obscure the true issue: a gross, unconstitutional campaign of victimization and retaliation against me for challenging the excesses of the Chief Justice. Below is my point-by-point rebuttal, grounded in fact and law.
1. ON THE ALLEGATION OF A 15-YEAR CASE BACKLOG
This allegation is technically and factually impossible. As your own investigations should have revealed, I was not in continuous service on the bench for a significant period encompassing the alleged 15-year backlog. I was previously targeted in a politically motivated witch-hunt orchestrated by then-Anti-Corruption Commissioner Abdul Tejan-Cole. Following a successful legal challenge that vindicated me completely, the Government of Sierra Leone reinstated me with full compensation, acknowledging the wrongful nature of that earlier persecution. The current allegations are a continuation of that same pattern of persecution. It is a logical absurdity to accuse a judge of a backlog for years during which he was unconstitutionally prevented from performing his duties.
2. ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF BRIBERY AND EXTORTION
These allegations are not only false but have been previously manufactured and have conclusively failed. The reference to Abdul Tejan-Cole is instructive. This individual, who once enjoyed the hospitality of my family home, for personal reasons orchestrated a failed sting operation against me. The crucial fact your sources have omitted is that I flatly refused the purported bribe. The ACC, having processed the money and sent an individual to my chambers under surveillance, found no evidence of wrongdoing on my part. My subsequent reinstatement and full compensation by the state is a matter of public record and serves as a complete vindication. Allegations are not evidence, and in this case, the allegations have already been tested and found to be without merit. I have never been found wanton for any misconduct by any competent legal authority.
3. ON THE “GROSS INSUBORDINATION” AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE’S DIRECTIVES
The framing of this issue is misleading. My correspondence with the Chief Justice, which began with my letter of 11th August 2025, was not about “insubordination” regarding case files. It was a formal complaint, based on Section 138(3) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone, 1991, regarding his unlawful actions in withholding my allowances, blocking my fuel supply, and varying my conditions of service to my disadvantage. The administrative measures you mention were not disciplinary actions for a backlog; they were the unconstitutional acts that precipitated my complaint. They were the cause of the dispute, not a consequence of it.
4. ON THE NATURE OF MY LETTER OF 11TH AUGUST 2025
I did not “petition the President.” I wrote a letter to the Chief Justice, outlining his unconstitutional conduct, and copied it to several state institutions and civil society organizations as is my right. My letter was an exercise of my constitutional right to seek redress and to expose a grave constitutional breach. It is disingenuous to suggest that a Judge must suffer in silence when his own constitutional protections are being violated by the head of the judiciary.
5. ON THE JUDICIAL AND LEGAL SERVICE COMMISSION (JLSC) TRIBUNAL PROCESS
The JLSC process was a sham, devoid of any legality or fairness. I draw your attention to the attached dissenting letter from The Hon. Mr. Justice Reginald Sydney Fynn JA, a member of the JLSC who was present at the meeting of 5th September 2025. His letter to His Excellency the President, which you must publish in full, reveals the truth:
There was no clear statement of misconduct against me.
The Chief Justice acted as “complainant and Chairman” in his own cause, a fundamental breach of natural justice (nemo judex in causa sua).
I was not informed of the charges or given an opportunity to be heard (audi alteram partem).
The decision was made in a “cloud of anger” without proper notice, based on old newspaper clippings.
Justice Fynn’s dissent exposes the tribunal recommendation for what it is: a retaliatory measure, not a bona fide disciplinary process. Furthermore, the suspension itself is unconstitutional, as Section 137(6) of the Constitution requires a tribunal to be appointed first; a step that was ignored.
6. ON “BREACH OF JUDICIAL PROTOCOL”
I challenge you or your sources to produce the specific “protocol” that forbids a Judge from copying a letter to civil society or the press when he reasonably believes his constitutional rights are under threat. There is no law or legally binding protocol that supersedes my fundamental right to expose a constitutional breach. Copying the fourth estate and civil society organizations was a lawful act to ensure transparency and accountability in a matter of significant public interest. The attempt to frame this as a breach is a smokescreen to avoid scrutiny of the substantive constitutional issues I raised.
7. ON THE CONDUCT OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE VICTIMIZATION OF JUSTICE FYNN
Your letter confirms you have not investigated the conduct of the Chief Justice. I urge you to do so immediately. The recent, vindictive removal of Justice Fynn from his positions as President of the Court of Appeal, Tutor at the Judicial Training Institute, and member of the Ethics Committee is a clear, retaliatory act for his dissent. This is a textbook case of abuse of office, contrary to the Anti-Corruption Act 2008 (as amended), and confirms the tyrannical pattern of governance I complained of. A Chief Justice who punishes dissent within the judiciary is a grave danger to judicial independence.
CONCLUSION
The allegations against me are a tissue of lies designed to tarnish my reputation and deflect from the serious constitutional violations I have documented. My conduct has always been consistent with, and in defence of, the Constitution of Sierra Leone. The real story is not a fictional backlog or baseless bribery claims, but the systemic abuse of power by the Chief Justice, the unconstitutional suspension of a judge who dared to speak out, and the subsequent punishment of another judge, Justice Fynn, for upholding the principles of justice.
I trust you will publish this response in its entirety, thereby fulfilling your duty to present a fair and balanced account to the public.
THE HON. MR. JUSTICE ALLAN B. HALLOWAY JSC
