Sierra Leone’s Supreme Court, in a ruling delivered on Friday,
has convicted human rights lawyer and social commentator, Augustine
Sorie-Sengbe Marrah, for criticising a decision of the court in a
social media post, according to humangle
reports.[1]
![image](/2020/10/lawbreedadvrt.jpg")
![image](/2020/10/lawreport.jpg")
A panel of five judges had, on Monday, upheld a presidential
appointment to the position of Commissioner of the Anti-Corruption
Commission (ACC).
![image](/2020/10/NWLRland.jpg")
The appointment had been criticised by some on the grounds that
the appointee, Francis Ben Kaifala, did not meet the criteria
necessary to qualify to become a high court judge. The position
requires a minimum of 10 years’ legal practice, and Marrah had
raised this observation through his Twitter account on October
26.
“Politics has yet again been elevated above the law in today’s
judgment by the Supreme Court. This is egregious chipping of the
sanctity of the law,” he wrote.
“We raised this same eyebrow when the Vice President’s illegal
sacking was judicially laundered. Only those allied with politics
will jubilate today.”
The Supreme Court then issued a bench warrant suspending his
rights to practise before any courts in Sierra Leone and suspending
the rule that says lawyers can not be arrested within court
premises “until the arrest of the said Augustine Sorie-Sengbe
Marah”. The same day, President Julius Maada Bio of Sierra Leone
abolished defamation as a crime.
The Nations news website published[2] that
Marrah was reported to have gone into hiding after judges at the
Supreme Court ordered his arrest and stripped him of his immunity
against being apprehended within court premises.
The court convicted Marrah on a charge of contempt and ordered
him to retract his publication and make an apology to be published
at his expense in three national dailies. The Council of the
Bar was also asked to discipline him for professional
misconduct.
Many Sierra Leoneans took to social media to challenge the
court’s decision.
“Deeply concerned about the safety and wellbeing of @Soe_Marrah,
an activist from Sierra Leone,” tweeted Vickie Remoe. “A judge has
issued a bench warrant and barred him from practice ― his crime?
Exercising freedom of speech. Asking that you bear witness to this
and #StandWithAugustineMarah.”
Nigerian lawyer and human rights activist, Professor Chidi
Odinkalu, also took to Twitter to share his displeasure on the
case.
“There are many things wrong with what the Supreme Court of
Sierra Leone did to @soe_marrah. First, even assuming there was
contempt here, it was not in the face of the court. The correct
process is for a complaint to be lodged with the Attorney-General
who will initiate charges,” he observed[3] on
Saturday.
“Second, given that contempt outside the face of the court is a
matter for the Attorney-General, the Supreme Court, as an appellate
instance, lacks first instance or summary jurisdiction over it. The
place to prosecute it is the High Court, not the Supreme Court.
“Third, the judges were out of line when they insisted on
requiring @soe_marrah to violate his constitutional entitlement
against self-incrimination.
“Fourth, having sentenced him to punishment, the judges exposed
their dispositions to the flaw of the prohibition against double
jeopardy by insisting on requiring the General Bar Council to
discipline @Soe_Marrah, when they could easily have just done that
alone to begin with.”
He criticised the Supreme Court for disregarding provisions of
the country’s constitution that guaranteed the freedom of
expression and noted that the case is part of a trend of judges
using “the cover of judicial power & appearance of legal process to
foreclose accountability”.
A campaign, I Stand With Lawyer Augustine Sengbeh
Marrah, has been trending on social media, including Facebook
and Twitter.
The Sierra Leone Association of Journalists joined in the
condemnation of the court’s decision, calling for its reversal.
But, in yet another sign of division within the legal profession,
the Sierra Leone Bar Association appeared to blame the situation on
Marrah for his failure to respect the court.
Sierra Leone’s Supreme Court, in a ruling delivered on Friday,
has convicted human rights lawyer and social commentator, Augustine
Sorie-Sengbe Marrah, for criticising a decision of the court in a
social media post, according to humangle
reports.[1]
A panel of five judges had, on Monday, upheld a presidential
appointment to the position of Commissioner of the Anti-Corruption
Commission (ACC).
The appointment had been criticised by some on the grounds that
the appointee, Francis Ben Kaifala, did not meet the criteria
necessary to qualify to become a high court judge. The position
requires a minimum of 10 years’ legal practice, and Marrah had
raised this observation through his Twitter account on October
26.
“Politics has yet again been elevated above the law in today’s
judgment by the Supreme Court. This is egregious chipping of the
sanctity of the law,” he wrote.
“We raised this same eyebrow when the Vice President’s illegal
sacking was judicially laundered. Only those allied with politics
will jubilate today.”
The Supreme Court then issued a bench warrant suspending his
rights to practise before any courts in Sierra Leone and suspending
the rule that says lawyers can not be arrested within court
premises “until the arrest of the said Augustine Sorie-Sengbe
Marah”. The same day, President Julius Maada Bio of Sierra Leone
abolished defamation as a crime.
The Nations news website published[2] that
Marrah was reported to have gone into hiding after judges at the
Supreme Court ordered his arrest and stripped him of his immunity
against being apprehended within court premises.
The court convicted Marrah on a charge of contempt and ordered
him to retract his publication and make an apology to be published
at his expense in three national dailies. The Council of the
Bar was also asked to discipline him for professional
misconduct.
Many Sierra Leoneans took to social media to challenge the
court’s decision.
“Deeply concerned about the safety and wellbeing of @Soe_Marrah,
an activist from Sierra Leone,” tweeted Vickie Remoe. “A judge has
issued a bench warrant and barred him from practice ― his crime?
Exercising freedom of speech. Asking that you bear witness to this
and #StandWithAugustineMarah.”
Nigerian lawyer and human rights activist, Professor Chidi
Odinkalu, also took to Twitter to share his displeasure on the
case.
“There are many things wrong with what the Supreme Court of
Sierra Leone did to @soe_marrah. First, even assuming there was
contempt here, it was not in the face of the court. The correct
process is for a complaint to be lodged with the Attorney-General
who will initiate charges,” he observed[3] on
Saturday.
“Second, given that contempt outside the face of the court is a
matter for the Attorney-General, the Supreme Court, as an appellate
instance, lacks first instance or summary jurisdiction over it. The
place to prosecute it is the High Court, not the Supreme Court.
“Third, the judges were out of line when they insisted on
requiring @soe_marrah to violate his constitutional entitlement
against self-incrimination.
“Fourth, having sentenced him to punishment, the judges exposed
their dispositions to the flaw of the prohibition against double
jeopardy by insisting on requiring the General Bar Council to
discipline @Soe_Marrah, when they could easily have just done that
alone to begin with.”
He criticised the Supreme Court for disregarding provisions of
the country’s constitution that guaranteed the freedom of
expression and noted that the case is part of a trend of judges
using “the cover of judicial power & appearance of legal process to
foreclose accountability”.
A campaign, I Stand With Lawyer Augustine Sengbeh
Marrah, has been trending on social media, including Facebook
and Twitter.
The Sierra Leone Association of Journalists joined in the
condemnation of the court’s decision, calling for its reversal.
But, in yet another sign of division within the legal profession,
the Sierra Leone Bar Association appeared to blame the situation on
Marrah for his failure to respect the court.