The detention of Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara, the former Attorney General and Justice Minister known as JFK, on a contempt charge during Sierra Leone’s Supreme Court hearings on the disputed Constitutional Amendment Act has opened a sharp divide over whether the judiciary acted within its powers or overstepped them, as the country awaits the next hearing on Tuesday, October 13.

Kamara, now lead counsel for the opposition All People’s Congress (APC) in the case challenging the amendment, clashed with the bench on the first day of substantive hearings after disputing whether the Attorney-General’s Office had properly filed a required Statement of Case. The exchange grew heated, and Chief Justice Komba Kamanda reminded Kamara that the Supreme Court is “founded on independence and integrity” and is not a platform for political argument, according to reporting on the proceedings. Kamara reportedly made remarks the Chief Justice considered contemptuous, including a comment accusing the bench of acting too quickly against him.

He apologized and retracted the remarks the following day, but when the hearing resumed, the Chief Justice rejected the apology as insufficient. He ordered Kamara to remove his barrister’s wig, called him to the dock, and had him taken into custody. Kamara was later briefly brought back to court in what was reportedly an opportunity for a further apology, but no bail hearing took place, and he was returned to Pademba Road Correctional Centre, where he remains.

The episode has split opinion along familiar political lines. Supporters of the governing Sierra Leone People’s Party have defended the Chief Justice’s response, pointing to Kamara’s remarks as disrespectful of the court. Opposition supporters and online commentators have taken the opposite view, with some describing the judiciary under President Julius Maada Bio’s government as having “gone rogue.” Commentator Haroun Olu Zubairu, writing on the Sierra Leone news site Cocorioko, argued that while the Court’s contempt powers are not in question, detention may have been a disproportionate response given that Kamara had already apologized, and warned that the perception of an impartial judiciary matters precisely because Kamara was representing the opposition in a politically charged case. “Political mistrust can deepen, constitutional disagreements can move beyond the courtroom,” he wrote, adding that the country’s “national stability can come under unnecessary pressure” if the ruling is seen as excessive.

The contempt dispute is unfolding alongside the substantive case it interrupted: a Supreme Court challenge to the Constitutional Amendment Act, which was passed by Parliament in August and changes the threshold for winning the presidency from 55 percent of valid votes to 50 percent plus one, among other reforms. That underlying case, and now Kamara’s continued detention, are both due back before the Court on Tuesday.

With Kamara still in custody and the constitutional questions still unresolved, Tuesday’s hearing is likely to be closely watched both for any movement on his bail and for how the Court proceeds with the broader case that triggered the standoff in the first place.

Sources: Cocorioko, Premier Media (Sierra Leone)