An in-depth analysis of the Sierra Leone Judiciary’s structure under the 1991 Constitution. Explore the hierarchical powers of the Supreme Court (Sec 124), Court of Appeal, and High Court, and the constitutional doctrine of judicial independence (Sec 120).
The 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone, in Chapter VII, does not merely establish a branch of government; it erects the foundational pillar for the rule of law. Section 120(1) vests the “judicial power of Sierra Leone… in the Judiciary,” a declaration that serves as the basis for the separation of powers. This analysis explores the sophisticated, hierarchical structure of Sierra Leone’s judiciary, a framework designed to ensure constitutional supremacy, provide for the redress of grievances, and guarantee judicial independence.
The Bedrock Principle: Judicial Independence
Before examining the hierarchy, the text’s reference to Section 120(1) & (2) is paramount. It establishes the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government, “subject only to this Constitution or any other law,” and critically, “not… subject to the control or direction of any other person or authority.”
This principle of judicial independence is the sine qua non of a functioning democracy. It is not a privilege for the judges but a right of the citizens, ensuring that disputes are determined impartially, based on law and fact, rather than political or executive pressure.
The Judicial Hierarchy: From Local Courts to the Apex
Section 120(4) bifurcates the judiciary into the Superior Court of Judicature and the inferior/traditional courts. This structure is not merely administrative; it provides a clear, intra-hierarchical path for appeals, error correction, and the development of legal precedent.
1. The High Court of Justice: The Supervisory Conscience
While the text notes the High Court’s original jurisdiction (unlimited in civil/criminal matters), its most constitutionally significant power is its supervisory jurisdiction over all inferior courts and administrative bodies.
This power, exercised through the “prerogative writs” (habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, prohibition), is the primary mechanism for judicial review of the executive. When an administrative body acts illegally (ultra vires), irrationally, or with procedural impropriety, it is the High Court that issues a writ of certiorari to quash the decision or mandamus to compel the body to perform its public duty. This power makes the High Court the engine room of administrative justice.
2. The Court of Appeal: The Guardian of Precedent
The Court of Appeal functions as the primary corrective chamber. Its jurisdiction, as per Section 129(1), is to “hear and determine appeals” from the High Court.
Crucially, the provided text highlights Section 128(3), which states the Court of Appeal is “bound by its own previous decisions.” This is a direct codification of the common law doctrine of stare decisis, most famously articulated in the English case of Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd [1944] KB 718. This principle ensures that the law is consistent, predictable, and stable, as similar cases are treated alike. This rigid adherence to precedent by the intermediate court is what solidifies the body of Sierra Leonean case law.
3. The Supreme Court: The Final Arbiter and Constitutional Guardian
At the apex sits the Supreme Court, the “final court of appeal” (Sec 122(1)). As the final arbiter, it is not bound by its own previous decisions, allowing it to adapt the common law to changing societal values, a flexibility denied to the Court of Appeal.
The most potent power of the Supreme Court, however, is its exclusive original jurisdiction under Section 124(1). This section grants the Court, “to the exclusion of all other courts,” the power of constitutional interpretation and enforcement. This is Sierra Leone’s equivalent of the principle established in the American locus classicus, Marbury v. Madison (1803) that the judiciary has the final say on the meaning of the constitution.
This power was famously and contentiously exercised in Hon. Alhaji Samuel Sam-Sumana v. The Attorney-General & Anor (2015). This case, concerning the removal of a Vice President, remains the definitive authority on the Supreme Court’s willingness to exercise its original jurisdiction to resolve high-stakes political and constitutional questions.
The “Leap Frog Approach” mentioned in the text is a direct procedural consequence of this jurisdiction. When a constitutional question arises in the High Court, it can be “referred” directly to the Supreme Court. This bypasses the Court of Appeal, ensuring that foundational questions about the constitution are answered with finality and authority by the apex court.
Conclusion: A Structure for Supremacy
The judiciary of Sierra Leone, as defined by the 1991 Constitution, is an intricate and deliberate design. It balances the broad original jurisdiction of the High Court with the error-correcting function of the Court of Appeal and the ultimate constitutional authority of the Supreme Court. From the High Court’s prerogative writs to the Supreme Court’s final interpretive power, this structure is designed to vindicate one overarching principle: the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law.