A REPLY TO J F K’s RESPONSE TO C J’s PRACTICE DIRECTIVES.
#Lawyer Joel Tejan Deen-Tarawally Dismisses Flawed Legal Opinions On Practice Direction On Drugs, Commends Chief Justice Komba Kamanda
One of Sierra Leone’s finest Prosecutors, Joel Tejan Deen-Tarawally Esq. has commended the Judiciary’s leadership on the timely issuance of the Practice Direction on drugs.
Please read below:
PRESERVING THE PRESUMPTION: WHY THE HON. CHIEF JUSTICE'S PRACTICE DIRECTIONS WARRANT REVIEW - A REJOINDER TO JOSEPH FITZGERALD’S KAMARA ESQ’S LEGAL POSITION
By: Joel Tejan Deen-Tarawally Esq.
Prosecutor, ACC
LL.M., BL, LL.B, B.A
My attention has been drawn to a legal opinion, by Joseph Fitzerald Kamara Esq., regarding the Practice Direction issued by the Honourable Chief Justice of the Republic of Sierra Leone dated 1st December 2025, raising legal issues with respect to the said Practice Direction vis-à-vis the presumption of innocence and the right to bail as provided in the laws of Sierra Leone.
Joseph Fitzerald Kamara Esq. (JFK Esq.) is a senior colleague and I have immense respect for him but I also know that he is not infallible. His interpretation and opinion on the Chief Justice’s Practice Direction is completely flawed and I disagree with him. Below is an excerpt of his opinion as published:
“The Practice Directions issued by the Honourable Chief Justice represent an attempt to judicialize the fight against drug abuse. However, their obverse presents a dangerous threat to the presumption of innocence. An absolute refusal of bail is contrary to established law and practice. Such a measure may unwittingly open the floodgates to abuse for political gain…”
Practice directions are not a novelty in law, they are procedural guidelines and instructions that are generally issued by the head of the judicial arm of the state and directed to judges in order to supplement the main rules and procedure of the courts. Hence, they constitute a practical and detailed advice on how to interpret and apply the rules of procedure, manage cases and conduct proceedings efficiently. Therefore, contrary to JFK Esq’s opinion, the Practice Direction from the Office of the Chief Justice dated 1st December 2025 is not an attempt to judicialise the fight against drug abuse. Rather, and from a purely legal lens, it is a commendable effort by the Judiciary to strengthen the fight against drug abuse at such a critical time when a significant number of our nation’s young population continues to helplessly suffer from the gruesome effect of drug and substance abuse while their traffickers continue profit and live in affluence.
Respectfully speaking, JFK Esq’s opinion that the Honourable Chief Justice’s Practice Direction presents a dangerous threat to the presumption of innocence is fundamentally flawed. His opinion constitutes a misinterpretation of the meaning and significance of the said practice direction. In view of his position, a perusal of the Practice Direction will certainly direct one’s attention to paragraph 2 therein which states as follows:
“No bail shall be granted to Defendants charged with offences pursuant to the National Drugs Control Act 2008 save in accordance with Section 76 Sub-section 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 8 of 2024.”
Regardless of the brevity of his interpretation and articulation of the aforesaid paragraph, what is clear from JFK’S Esq.’s position is that such a directive threatens the presumption of innocence and the same may lead to an absolute refusal of bail by Judges who preside over matters dealing with offences under the Drugs Control Act of 2008. This interpretation does not reflect the true and proper meaning of paragraph 2 of the said Practice Direction. In fact, the said paragraph on bail in the Practice Direction is completely consistent with the presumption of innocence and it is equally congruent with Section 76 of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 8 of 2024, which is the current procedural law that speaks to bail in such matters. This is because paragraph 2 of the Practice Direction states that no bail shall be granted to Defendants standing trial for drugs and drugs related matters under the Drugs Control Act of 2008 except in accordance with the Section 76 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of 2024, which said provision states as follows:
“Where a person is charged with an offence (a) of murder or treason he shall not be admitted to bail except by a Judge; (b) for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment, the Court may, if it thinks fit, admit him to bail; (c) other than those referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b), the Court shall admit him to bail, unless the prosecutor proffers good and sufficient reasons, on affidavit, why bail should not be granted.”
The Chief Justice’s Practice Direction on bail is therefore not an instruction to Judges to refuse bail, and such directive certainly does not translate to an absolute refusal of bail contrary to the interpretation of JFK Esq. It is rather a directive that is instructive of the fact that, considering the current serious national interest in drug and substance abuse cases, Judges should not grant bail where a Prosecutor has proffered good and sufficient reasons, on affidavit, why bail should not be granted. It reiterates the importance of the refusal of bail in such cases, especially where a Prosecutor has profferred good and sufficient reasons why bail should not be granted.
Sequel to the above, JFK Esq.’s thoughts regarding the Practice Direction from the Office of the Chief Justice lacks the precision and legal exactitude of a true legal lens and therefore fundamentally flawed. Hence, the same should be disregarded.
No comments:
Post a Comment