In Justice Halloway Case… Tribunal Overrules Defence’s Objection

By Fatima Sesay

The three-member tribunal investigating allegations against Justice Alan B. Halloway has dismissed the objection raised by the defence challenging the panel’s jurisdiction and the constitutionality of its formation.

The ruling was delivered by its Chairman, Justice Abdulai Bangurah, in the presence of the defendant, his legal team, and State Counsel.

In its decision, the tribunal ruled against all issues raised by the defence, including arguments questioning the panel’s authority to hear the matter and claims of breach of natural justice.

The panel held that the application lacked merit and dismissed it accordingly.

The defence application, which sought to halt proceedings on grounds of want of jurisdiction and alleged procedural irregularities, was refused, clearing the way for the tribunal to proceed with its mandate.

The objection stemmed from arguments advanced during earlier sittings, where Defence Counsel Sulaiman Banja Tejan-Sie challenged the legality of the tribunal’s establishment and his client’s suspension.

He contended that Justice Halloway was never accorded a fair hearing before being interdicted, and that the process leading to the tribunal’s formation was unconstitutional and procedurally flawed.

Counsel argued that the tribunal originated from a September 2025 meeting of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC), during which members allegedly resolved to remove a judge of the Superior Court of Judicature.

He maintained that his client was neither informed of any disciplinary proceedings nor given the opportunity to defend himself prior to his suspension.

The defence further questioned the role of the Chief Justice, who reportedly served both as complainant and Chairman of the JLSC.

According to counsel, this dual role created actual bias and undermined the integrity of the process.

He cited claims that Justice Reginald Fynn had called for the Chief Justice to recuse himself from deliberations and objected to referring the matter to the President, but his position was overruled.

Additionally, the defence referenced correspondence allegedly written by Justice Fynn to the President, advising against the establishment of the tribunal on grounds of lack of fair hearing.

Counsel submitted that any complaint forwarded to the President without affording Justice Halloway the right to be heard was legally invalid and rendered the tribunal’s constitution premature and prejudicial.

In response, State Counsel J.A.K. Sesay argued that the JLSC is a constitutional body mandated to investigate complaints and make recommendations to the President.

He informed the tribunal that written submissions had been filed addressing the defence’s concerns, and maintained that extensive discussions were held during the Commission’s meeting.

The State further contended that decisions of the Commission were reached through majority voting and not by any single individual. Reference was also made to records attributed to the Solicitor General alleging that Justice Halloway had made grave statements indicating he would “misbehave until the Chief Justice resigns,” conduct which the State argued justified the Commission’s action.

Following the dismissal of the preliminary objection, the tribunal adjourned proceedings to 3rd March 2026 to continue hearing the substantive matter.