Is SLBA Pursuing Its Constitutional Mandate? – Human Rights Commissioner Questions

By John Kelly Marah

As the Sierra Leone Bar Association (SLBA) prepares for its postponed Annual General Meeting (AGM) and elections, Vice Chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone, Victor Idrissa Lansana Esq., has cautioned that the challenges facing the legal profession extend far beyond the outcome of any electoral contest.

Speaking in an interview on the current state of the Bar, Lansana argued that while elections are an important democratic exercise, they cannot by themselves resolve the longstanding institutional and ideological divisions that have affected the Association for years.

According to him, the debate surrounding the upcoming elections should not overshadow the more fundamental question of whether the Bar is faithfully pursuing the objectives for which it was established.

“The conversation should go beyond who wins or loses an election,” he said. “The real issue is whether the Bar is fulfilling its constitutional and institutional mandate as set out in its Memorandum and Articles of Association.”

Lansana noted that the SLBA was established to promote and protect human rights, defend constitutionalism, uphold the rule of law, support democratic governance, and protect the welfare and professional interests of its members.

However, he observed that many lawyers have, over the years, expressed concerns that the Association has not consistently lived up to those expectations.

Drawing from more than a decade of experience within the legal profession, he recalled that disagreements over the direction of the Bar did not begin with the recent controversies surrounding the elections.

“The divisions within the Bar are not new. They existed long before the 2024 elections in Kenema. What happened in Kenema merely exposed differences that had been building over many years,” he explained.

He referenced the well-known 2015 confrontation at the Law Courts Building on Siaka Stevens Street, where disagreements among lawyers over the position the Bar should take on a national issue resulted in disorder and prevented the Association from reaching a unified decision.

For Lansana, that episode demonstrated that internal divisions had long undermined the Bar’s ability to speak with one voice on matters of national importance.

Addressing concerns about political influence within the legal profession, he acknowledged that lawyers, like all citizens, have a right to participate in politics and public life. Many members of the Bar, he noted, have served as Members of Parliament, ministers, and holders of other public offices.

However, he emphasized that political affiliation should never override the institutional responsibilities of the Association.

“It is not wrong for lawyers to belong to political parties. The challenge arises when political interests begin to overshadow the objectives of the Bar. Members must be able to separate partisan loyalties from their obligations to the institution,” he stated.

Lansana warned that the growing perception that the Bar has become politically polarized has weakened public confidence in the Association and contributed to internal fragmentation.

He expressed doubt that the forthcoming elections alone would restore unity among lawyers, arguing that meaningful reconciliation requires a renewed commitment to the Association’s founding principles.

“Unity will not come simply because elections have been held. The Bar will only be united when members collectively commit themselves to promoting human rights, defending constitutionalism, advancing the rule of law, and protecting the welfare of lawyers,” he said.

The Human Rights Commission Vice Chairperson also weighed in on the postponement of the AGM and elections, acknowledging that the Executive possesses the authority to make administrative decisions regarding the timing of such events. Nevertheless, he questioned the manner in which the postponement was communicated.

According to him, transparency and predictability are essential elements of good institutional governance. He argued that members should have been informed not only of the postponement, but also of the new dates to allow adequate planning and participation.

“Lawyers are busy professionals. Many make arrangements based on dates communicated by the Association. Good governance requires clarity and timely communication,” he noted.

Lansana concluded by urging members of the Bar to look beyond electoral competition and focus on the broader mission of the Association.

“The future of the Bar depends not on personalities or political camps, but on its commitment to the principles upon which it was founded. If those principles remain at the center of the Association’s work, unity and credibility can be restored. If they are ignored, the divisions will persist regardless of who occupies leadership positions,” he concluded.

As the legal profession awaits the rescheduled AGM and elections, Lansana’s intervention serves as a reminder that the true test facing the Sierra Leone Bar Association is not merely who wins the next vote, but whether the institution can reclaim its constitutional mandate and restore confidence among its members and the wider public.