By Fatima Kpaka
Freetown, Sierra Leone – The Supreme Court of Sierra Leone has issued a ruling regarding an application for the recusal of Justice Allan B. Halloway JSC from presiding over a case involving Ikubolaji Nicol. The application, brought by the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, challenged Justice Halloway’s impartiality in the matter.
Background: The case originated from charges of conspiracy, manslaughter, and perverting the course of justice against the Accused/Respondent, Ikubolaji Nicol.
Basis of the Recusal Application: The Respondent/Applicant argued that Justice Halloway should be recused due to his membership in the Quimanora Club, to which the Accused/Respondent also belongs. They claimed this relationship had “transcended from mere friendship to a brotherhood,” creating a perception of bias. Photos of Justice Halloway and the Accused/Respondent at events were submitted as evidence. The application also noted that Justice Halloway issued an order to stay proceedings in the High Court without moving or hearing the Respondent/Applicant.
Legal Submissions: Counsel for the Respondent/Applicant invoked Rule 97(1) of the Court’s Rules, supporting their application with an affidavit and statement of case. The application sought to prohibit Justice Halloway from continuing to preside over the matter. The Counsel for the Accused/Respondent argued that the application was not valid under Section 125 of the 1991 Constitution.
Court’s Findings: The Court found that the Respondent/Applicant had failed to prove actual bias or a real possibility of bias against Justice Halloway. The Court held that membership in a club does not automatically disqualify a judge. The court noted that Justice Halloway’s ex-membership in the club and attendance at an event with the Accused/Respondent did not constitute sufficient evidence of a relationship that would cause bias. Further, they noted that there was no evidence to suggest that Justice Halloway said or did anything in the course of the proceedings that would warrant an apprehension of bias. The Court expressed concern about the increasing frequency of recusal applications, noting that such applications could be used for forum shopping or to delay proceedings.
Decision: The Court dismissed the application for recusal, finding the apprehension of bias to be “imaginary and of no substance.” The Court ordered that the substantive application from May 10, 2024, should proceed and be heard by the current court. The court also dismissed the Respondent/Applicant’s request to vacate an earlier order issued on July 1, 2024, staying proceedings in the High Court, stating it had been granted by the full five-member panel.
The ruling was delivered by a panel of three Justices, including Justices Allan B. Halloway, Abdulai M. Bangura, and Monfred M. Sesay.