From Kenema 2024 to Bintumani 2026: The Court Order, the Disputed Voters’ Register and the Irony of an Outgoing Leadership
An executive that came to office amid allegations of electoral irregularities eventually relinquished control of the Sierra Leone Bar Association amid another dispute over electoral integrity. But the most revealing development was not simply its departure. It was the application of a court-ordered verification process that excluded several of its prominent officers from the provisional voters’ register.
There are moments in the history of institutions when events unfold with such remarkable irony that they demand serious reflection.
The recent history of the Sierra Leone Bar Association (SLBA), particularly the administration of the outgoing executive led by Madam Tuma Adama Gento Jabbie-Kamara, presents one such moment. In May 2024, the executive emerged from a fiercely contested election in Kenema, amid protests, accusations of electoral impropriety and fundamental disagreements over the verification of eligible voters.
In October 2026, that same executive had already relinquished control of the Association to a caretaker administration following another controversy involving voter eligibility, bank records and judicial intervention.
And when the caretaker administration applied the prescribed eligibility requirements, several prominent members of the outgoing executive, including Madam Gento Jabbie-Kamara herself and former Public Relations Officer Alfred Kamanda, were missing from the provisional list of eligible voters. What an extraordinary turn of events!
The significance of this development becomes even more compelling when one appreciates that the caretaker administration was not imposing an entirely new qualification upon members. It was implementing the High Court’s direction that only members who had made the prescribed payments by the original deadline of 29 May 2026, supported by the required banking evidence, could participate in the electoral process.
The rules were not supposed to change to suit the caretaker executive. The existing eligibility requirements were to be enforced. And therein lies the central issue.
THE KENEMA ELECTIONS OF 2024: A CONTROVERSIAL BEGINNING
The SLBA elections held in Kenema in May 2024 remain among the most controversial in the Association’s recent history.
The exercise was conducted amid serious disagreements and protests by lawyers who challenged the fairness and transparency of the proceedings.
At the centre of the controversy was lawyer Francis Ben Kaifala, Commissioner of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), who served as Returning Officer.
Complaints arose concerning the verification of eligible voters and the distribution of ballot papers. Some lawyers alleged that the process failed to provide adequate safeguards against participation by persons whose eligibility had not been properly established.
Mr. Kaifala denied allegations that he had manipulated the election. Nevertheless, the controversy left a significant section of the legal profession dissatisfied.
The result was an executive whose electoral legitimacy was challenged from the outset. The fundamental question was simple: ‘How could an Association composed of lawyers, whose professional responsibility includes defending due process and procedural fairness, become embroiled in such serious disagreements over the conduct of its own elections?’ It is a question that acquired renewed significance two years later.
For in 2026, the Association would again find itself confronting the same fundamental issue: who was genuinely entitled to vote?
THE 2026 ELECTORAL REGISTER: OVER ONE THOUSAND NAMES, BUT WHERE WAS THE BANKING EVIDENCE?
The controversy surrounding the proposed 2026 AGM and executive elections exposed a serious disagreement over the Association’s membership records.
Under the prescribed arrangements, members wishing to participate were required to pay the relevant subscription and conference fees through the designated banking process. The qualifying deadline was 29 May 2026. This was the deadline applicable to the original electoral arrangements under the outgoing executive.
Yet a voters’ register reportedly containing approximately 1,037 names became the subject of serious controversy when compared with the substantially smaller number of qualifying payments identified in contemporary accounts of the bank records.
One published account identified 528 qualifying payments, producing a discrepancy of approximately 509 names.
That discrepancy demanded an explanation.
Were all the persons on the larger register genuinely qualified?
Had payments been made through other channels?
Were there administrative errors?
Or had names been included without the required proof of payment?
The existence of a discrepancy does not automatically establish fraudulent registration. Nevertheless, the integrity of an election requires the electoral authorities to explain and reconcile such differences.
Where voting eligibility depends upon payment through a prescribed banking process, the register must be supported by the required payment records.
The executive cannot simply publish a list and expect the legal profession to accept every name without verification. This was not an ordinary disagreement over political preferences. It concerned the foundation of electoral legitimacy.
THE HIGH COURT’S INTERVENTION: THE ORIGINAL DEADLINE BECOMES DECISIVE
On 23 July 2026, the High Court of Sierra Leone, presided over by Justice Mark Ngegba, issued orders concerning the forthcoming SLBA elections.
The proceedings arose from a legal challenge brought by lawyer Ebunoluwa Tengbeh against the Association, members of its executive and Rokel Commercial Bank.
The Court directed that eligibility for participation in the AGM and elections be established through the prescribed banking evidence showing that the required payments had been made on or before 29 May 2026.
The Court also required compliance with the Association’s Memorandum and Articles of Association and directed the production of relevant financial records.
The significance of this ruling cannot be overstated.
The Court did not simply order the Association to conduct another election. It addressed the fundamental question of who was legally qualified to participate.
Most importantly, the prescribed deadline was not to be extended merely because the original election had been delayed. This meant that a member who had not satisfied the payment requirements by 29 May 2026 could not automatically acquire voting eligibility by making a later payment.
Likewise, appearing on a previously published register could not substitute for the prescribed proof of qualification.
The determining factor was not whose name an executive wished to include. It was whether that member had satisfied the prescribed eligibility requirements within the stipulated period. That distinction would prove decisive.
BINTUMANI: THE ELECTION THAT FAILED TO PROCEED
On 31 July 2026, the proposed AGM and elections at the Freetown International Conference Centre, Bintumani, did not proceed following police intervention. The circumstances generated considerable controversy.
The outgoing executive protested the interruption, while questions continued concerning compliance with the Court’s orders and the disputed voters’ register.
The legality and propriety of police intervention remain separate questions deserving objective consideration.
The independence of the Bar must always be protected against improper interference. But the independence of a professional association does not relieve it of the obligation to comply with binding judicial orders.
The failure of the July AGM had an important institutional consequence. The outgoing executive did not conduct the election of its successor.
Following an Extraordinary General Meeting on 6 August 2026, a caretaker body chaired by Solicitor-General Osman Ibrahim Kanu assumed responsibility for the Association’s electoral transition. Madam Gento Jabbie-Kamara’s executive handed over leadership. Thus, the outgoing executive lost control of the process through which the Association’s next leadership would be chosen. And it was under the caretaker administration that the question of eligibility was subjected to the prescribed verification requirements.
ALFRED KAMANDA’S TEARS: THE PROTEST AND THE SUBSEQUENT IRONY
One of the most memorable scenes from the aborted July AGM was the emotional public protest of the then Public Relations Officer, lawyer Alfred Kamanda.
Before television cameras, Mr. Kamanda became visibly distressed as he complained about the interruption of the proceedings. He protested that the executive had not been served with a court order restraining the AGM.
His emotional reaction attracted considerable public attention.
At the time, his supporters could reasonably have regarded the protest as an expression of frustration over what they considered interference with the independence of the Bar. But subsequent events invite a different line of inquiry.
Was the concern confined to the police intervention?
Did the outgoing leadership appreciate that further delay could result in its losing responsibility for administering the elections?
And what significance should be attached to the subsequent publication of a substantially smaller provisional register that omitted Mr. Kamanda himself?
These are legitimate questions.
However, it would be improper to claim that his tears conclusively established knowledge of fraudulent registration or fear of exposure.
The significance of the episode lies instead in the sequence of events.
The election was stopped.
The outgoing executive subsequently handed over.
The caretaker body assumed responsibility.
The prescribed banking requirements were applied.
And Mr. Kamanda was among those omitted from the provisional list.
The tears attracted attention, but the documentary verification of eligible voters became the decisive issue.
THE CARETAKER EXECUTIVE: NOT NEW RULES, BUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT ORDER
This is perhaps the most important aspect of the entire controversy.
The caretaker body headed by Osman Ibrahim Kanu did not purport to determine eligibility merely according to personal preference or political allegiance. Its published electoral arrangements expressly relied upon the High Court order and the Association’s governing instruments.
The applicable test was whether a member had paid the prescribed fees by 29 May 2026 and possessed the required banking evidence. That requirement applied equally to ordinary members, executive officers, presidential aspirants and all other candidates. No person was entitled to preferential treatment merely because he or she had previously occupied a senior position within the Association.
The caretaker administration’s notice of 25 October 2026 reaffirmed that eligibility would be determined by bank statements or payment slips evidencing compliance with the deadline.
The result was a considerably smaller provisional voters’ register.
This is what makes the comparison with the outgoing executive’s earlier register so significant. The question was no longer merely how many names had been published. It was how many names could satisfy the prescribed eligibility test. The difference between a published name and a legally qualified voter became the defining issue of the 2026 SLBA elections.
WHEN THE OUTGOING EXECUTIVE’S OWN NAMES WERE MISSING
On 22 October 2026, the caretaker body published a provisional register containing 429 names.
The development attracted immediate public attention. Among those reportedly omitted were outgoing President Tuma Adama Gento Jabbie-Kamara, former Public Relations Officer Alfred Kamanda, Vice President Sidique Tommy, General Secretary Alfred Paul Juwah, Treasurer Sotto Kobba and Assistant Treasurer Yoko Mahiteh Brewah. These were not ordinary members. They were prominent officers of the very executive whose administration had become embroiled in the dispute over the earlier electoral register.
Madam Gento Jabbie-Kamara had reportedly intended to seek re-election. Yet her name was missing from the caretaker body’s provisional list. What an extraordinary institutional irony!
An outgoing President seeking another term found herself omitted from the published provisional list of persons eligible to participate in the electoral process. The same was true of several of her principal executive colleagues. The omissions did not, without further evidence, establish fraud or professional misconduct. The provisional register was also subject to a correction process. Nevertheless, the development raised an unavoidable question.
How could so many senior officers of the outgoing executive, responsible for administering the Association’s affairs, find themselves omitted from the register prepared under the prescribed verification requirements? The answer must ultimately be found in the payment records, the applicable deadline and the final certified register. But the institutional embarrassment is evident.
The controversy was no longer simply about whether the outgoing executive’s preferred electoral arrangements should proceed. It was also about whether prominent members of that executive had themselves satisfied the qualifications required of every other participating member.
FRANCIS BEN KAIFALA AND THE IRONY OF THE KENEMA RETURNING OFFICER
Another notable aspect concerns lawyer Francis Ben Kaifala, Commissioner of the Anti-Corruption Commission.
Mr. Kaifala served as Returning Officer during the disputed Kenema elections of 2024.
His conduct attracted criticism from lawyers who questioned the adequacy of voter verification and the fairness of the proceedings.
At the AGM held on Monday, 26 October 2026, Mr. Kaifala was not observed in the hall by a participating lawyer who attended and voted. That observation is noteworthy because of his prominent role in the earlier controversy.
There have also been accounts suggesting that lawyers attached to the Anti-Corruption Commission were not included in the bank-verified list of eligible members. Those accounts require confirmation against the final certified electoral records.
Absence from the hall does not establish absence from the register, and neither fact alone establishes electoral misconduct. Nevertheless, the wider institutional question remains significant.
A public official whose responsibilities include combating corruption had previously administered an SLBA election whose voter-verification procedures became the subject of serious criticism.
Two years later, the Association’s electoral arrangements required judicial intervention to establish an objectively verifiable qualification for voting. That sequence should encourage reflection on the importance of consistent standards.
The legal profession must demonstrate in its own affairs the same transparency, fairness and accountability that it demands from public institutions.
OCTOBER 26, 2026: THE ELECTION FINALLY TAKES PLACE
On Monday, 26 October 2026, the Sierra Leone Bar Association conducted its long-awaited AGM and executive elections at Bintumani.
The proceedings took place under the caretaker administration.
Martina Baindu Egbenda emerged as President, having been elected unopposed.
For the Association, the occasion marked the conclusion of a prolonged period of uncertainty. For the outgoing executive, it marked the completion of a leadership transition that had taken place under circumstances very different from those originally anticipated.
The October election was conducted under published eligibility requirements tied to the High Court order.
The central significance was that the Association proceeded on the basis of a prescribed verification process rather than merely relying upon the disputed earlier register. The result also demonstrated the practical importance of the original payment deadline.
The postponement of an election does not necessarily entitle members to disregard qualifications that were already required for participation. That is an elementary principle of procedural fairness. Rules must apply equally to all participants.
THE QUESTION OF FRAUD: WHAT MUST NOW BE ESTABLISHED?
The controversy surrounding the earlier register should not disappear merely because the Association has elected a new executive.
A reported register of 1,037 names, compared with substantially fewer qualifying bank payments, raises serious questions requiring documentary reconciliation. But the legal profession must distinguish suspicion from proof.
A discrepancy is evidence of a problem requiring investigation. It is not, standing alone, proof of fraudulent intent. If it were established that names had knowingly been inserted into the register without the prescribed qualifications, for the purpose of influencing an election, the consequences could be serious.
Depending upon the evidence and applicable law, such conduct could raise questions of professional misconduct, dishonesty or criminal liability. But responsibility must be established individually and objectively.
An appropriate examination should identify who prepared the register, who authorised its publication, what evidence supported the entries, whether the discrepancies were known and whether any person deliberately disregarded the governing rules.
The records should also establish whether the different published figures relate to the same membership categories and qualifying periods. These are questions capable of documentary resolution. The Association should therefore preserve the relevant banking records, membership registers, correspondence and electoral documents. The proper response to suspected electoral manipulation is not merely public condemnation. It is an impartial examination of the evidence and accountability wherever wrongdoing is established.
ELECTED IN DISGRACE, REMOVED IN DISGRACE: THE INSTITUTIONAL IRONY
The headline of this article reflects the severe criticism directed at the outgoing executive over the circumstances of its emergence and departure.
It is a political and institutional characterisation, not a claim that a court has found the executive fraudulently elected or unlawfully removed. Nevertheless, the sequence of events is remarkable.
In 2024, the executive emerged from an election whose fairness was challenged.
In 2026, its proposed electoral arrangements became the subject of judicial intervention over voter eligibility.
The July AGM failed to proceed.
The outgoing executive subsequently handed over responsibility to a caretaker body.
That body published a substantially smaller provisional voters’ register.
Several prominent officers of the outgoing executive were omitted.
And the caretaker administration eventually conducted the elections that produced a new leadership.
The institutional irony is difficult to overlook.
An executive whose legitimacy was questioned at the beginning of its administration eventually left office amid another controversy concerning the legitimacy of the electoral process.
That is the connection between Kenema 2024 and Bintumani 2026.
And it is a connection that deserves to remain part of the Association’s institutional history.
THE GREATER LESSON: LAWYERS MUST PRACTISE THE RULE OF LAW THEY PREACH
The Sierra Leone Bar Association is not an ordinary organisation.
It is a professional institution whose members are officers of the court and participants in the administration of justice.
The public is therefore entitled to expect especially high standards of transparency, procedural fairness and accountability.
How can lawyers insist upon credible national elections while tolerating unresolved questions concerning the integrity of their own electoral register?
How can the legal profession demand compliance with judicial orders while treating its own electoral rules as matters of convenience?
How can lawyers effectively challenge administrative arbitrariness in public institutions if they fail to confront similar concerns within their own professional body?
These questions are not attacks upon the Bar.
They are questions about the standards upon which its credibility depends. The independence of the Bar must be defended. But independence cannot mean exemption from the law. Professional solidarity must be preserved. But solidarity must never become a substitute for accountability.
The legitimacy of leadership must rest not merely upon electoral declarations but upon demonstrable compliance with the rules governing the election.
A NEW LEADERSHIP AND THE RESPONSIBILITY TO RESTORE CONFIDENCE
The election of Martina Baindu Egbenda presents the Association with an opportunity to address the institutional difficulties that characterised the preceding electoral period.
The new executive should ensure that membership records are transparent, electoral qualifications are consistently enforced and future elections are conducted in strict accordance with the Association’s governing instruments. An independent reconciliation of the disputed electoral registers would also serve the interests of the profession. Such an exercise should not become an instrument of retaliation against former officers. Its purpose should be to establish the facts, identify any administrative or professional misconduct and prevent a recurrence.
Those found responsible for wrongdoing should be held accountable through the appropriate procedures.
Those against whom allegations are not established should not be condemned merely because of their association with the outgoing leadership. That is the discipline demanded by the rule of law.
CONCLUSION: THE COURT ORDER, THE REGISTER AND THE VERDICT OF HISTORY
The events of May 2024 and October 2026 will remain connected in the institutional memory of the Sierra Leone Bar Association.
Kenema witnessed an election surrounded by allegations of procedural unfairness.
Bintumani witnessed the eventual election of a new leadership following judicial intervention, a disputed register and the establishment of a caretaker administration.
The defining feature of the October process was the enforcement of the prescribed payment requirements and the original qualifying deadline. And when those requirements were applied, several prominent members of the outgoing executive were missing from the provisional voters’ register.
That development did not, by itself, establish fraud. But it exposed the importance of an objective electoral qualification that could be independently verified.
As for the emotional protest of former PRO Alfred Kamanda when the earlier election was stopped, history should not judge him by his tears. It should judge the conduct of all concerned by the evidence. For tears cannot establish guilt. Neither can they establish innocence. Only the relevant facts, properly examined, can support either conclusion.
The outstanding question is whether the outgoing executive can satisfactorily account for the discrepancy surrounding the earlier electoral register. Until that question is resolved, the controversy will remain an important part of its legacy.
For critics of the outgoing administration, the phrase is unmistakable:
ELECTED IN DISGRACE, REMOVED IN DISGRACE.
But the enduring lesson is more important than the headline. No executive is above the rules of the institution it governs. No lawyer is above the law he or she professes to defend. And no election can claim unquestionable legitimacy unless the eligibility of its voters is established in accordance with the governing requirements.
The Sierra Leone Bar Association must now ensure that its future electoral processes are worthy of the legal profession’s responsibility to uphold justice.
PONDER MY THOUGHTS!
