By Mintee Davies – Special Opinion for Publication

The constitutional matter presently before the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone has captured national attention not merely because of its legal significance, but because of the political temperature surrounding it. What should have been a serious judicial process is now at risk of becoming a theatre of political tension, overshadowing the very people whose rights and future the Constitution is meant to protect.

As the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Komba Kamanda, has ordered the consolidation of related causes before it, I believe the plaintiffs should take one further step: consolidate their legal representation as well. A unified legal front would not only streamline the proceedings but also reduce the perception of factionalism that is beginning to cloud public confidence.

The most delicate issue, and the one now dominating public discourse, is the role of Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara (JFK) in the matter.

The events of recent days have shown how quickly courtroom decorum can collapse under political pressure. Despite Mr. Kamara’s apology and withdrawal of his remarks, the tension did not subside. The Chief Justice’s reaction, including the dramatic order sending JFK to prison, demonstrated just how strained the atmosphere has become. Even the intervention of the Attorney General and other senior figures could not calm the situation.

In such a climate, recusal is not an admission of blame. It is an act of leadership.

It is my humble opinion that Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara should recuse himself from this matter. Not because he lacks competence, nor because he lacks patriotism, but because the environment has become too charged for any one individual to carry the weight of both legal argument and political symbolism.

The political undertones surrounding this constitutional matter are not helpful. They risk turning a serious national issue into a partisan contest, APC versus SLPP, when in truth, the stakes are far greater.

This case should not be viewed through the lens of party rivalry. It should be understood as the State versus the People: a moment when citizens seek clarity, fairness, and constitutional certainty from the institutions designed to protect them.

The people of Sierra Leone have not been adequately considered in the framing of this matter. Their voices, anxieties, and hopes are being drowned out by political drama. That must change.

In the interest of restoring calm and credibility, I respectfully suggest that the leadership of the consolidated legal effort be entrusted to Basita Michael of ILRAJ. At this moment, she stands as one of the few figures perceived as neutral, measured, and focused on the rule of law rather than political allegiance.

Her involvement would not only reassure the public but also help re-centre the conversation on constitutional principles rather than political loyalties.

Sierra Leoneans deeply respect the authority of the Chief Justice and the distinguished lawyers involved in this matter. Their expertise is unquestioned. However, respect for institutions must be matched with sensitivity to public perception. When legal proceedings begin to resemble political battles, the people lose trust and democracy suffers.

My plea is simple: let this matter be addressed neutrally. Let the plaintiffs consolidate their case and their counsel. Let political undertones be set aside. Let the focus return to justice for the people of Sierra Leone.

The Constitution belongs to the nation, not to any party, not to any individual, and not to any moment of courtroom tension. It is my prayer that this opinion will be considered in the spirit of peace, unity, and national progress.

Mintee Davies