The Lawyers’ Society has issued a strong statement opposing the suspension of Hon. Justice Allan B. Halloway JSC by the Office of the President, describing the move as inconsistent with constitutional provisions and a threat to judicial independence.
Justice Halloway was suspended pursuant to Section 137(6) of the 1991 Constitution, pending the outcome of a disciplinary tribunal. However, the Lawyers’ Society noted that no reasons were given for the investigation and expressed concern that the suspension came shortly after the judge raised grievances about his treatment within the judiciary.
According to the Society, Justice Halloway wrote letters dated 11th August and 11th September 2025, alleging that he had been denied statutory allowances and benefits, removed from case panels, and excluded from hearings at both the Appellate and Supreme Courts. He further claimed these actions had negatively affected both his health and that of his mother and argued they violated Section 138(3) of the Constitution as well as his fundamental rights under the same Constitution and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
The Lawyers’ Society disclosed that it wrote to the Chief Justice on 22nd August and 5th September 2025 requesting a response to Justice Halloway’s complaints but has yet to receive any acknowledgment.
The Society emphasized three key concerns:
- That the Judicial and Legal Service Commission should have considered Justice Halloway’s complaint against the Chief Justice before any action was taken.
- That the constitutional requirement to establish a tribunal before suspending a judge was not followed.
- That the suspension risks discouraging judicial officers from airing legitimate grievances, thereby weakening judicial cohesion and eroding public trust.
“The Society therefore calls for a reversal of this suspension by the Presidency and for the matter to be remitted to the Judicial and Legal Service Commission in collaboration with the Judicial Ethics Committee to address Justice Halloway’s complaints,” the statement read.
The Society stressed the importance of maintaining a respectful, intimidation-free environment within the judiciary, arguing that such conditions are critical for upholding independence and ensuring fair justice delivery.
It also reaffirmed its commitment to defending the Constitution, safeguarding judicial independence, and working with stakeholders on reforms that restore public confidence, but only through strict adherence to due process and accountability.
