12/30/2025
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Augustine Marrah Trigger Constitutional Challenge
Credit: Magazine
The law firm of Marrah and Associates has filed papers in the Supreme Court dated 24th December 2025 challenging the disciplinary proceedings brought against President of the Lawyers Society, Augustine Sorie Sengbe Marrah .
The move comes days after the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council initiated formal proceedings against Mr Marrah over alleged professional misconduct. The complaint was filed by Lloyd Hindolo Jusu, Deputy Master and Registrar of the High Court, who accused the senior lawyer of conduct said to breach the Legal Practitioners Act 2000 and the Code of Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2010.
As previously reported by , the complaint stems from remarks Mr Marrah allegedly made during a live television appearance on African Young Voices in December 2025, which were described in court documents as insulting and disrespectful towards judges of the superior courts. The affidavit further cited an earlier incident at the Supreme Court where Mr Marrah allegedly stood on a table reserved for the Chief Justice and other judges during a meeting. The complaint also referenced his 2020 conviction for criminal contempt by the Supreme Court.
Following receipt of the complaint, the Disciplinary Committee notified Mr Marrah on 19 December 2025 that an inquiry would be conducted under Section 31(4) of the Legal Practitioners Act and directed him to file an affidavit in response by 29 December 2025.
In response, Mr Marrah has now filed an originating notice of motion at the Supreme Court, naming the Deputy Master and Registrar, the General Legal Council and its Disciplinary Committee, and the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice as defendants. He is seeking constitutional reliefs, including an order staying the disciplinary proceedings pending the determination of his case.
In his court filings, Mr Marrah argues that the disciplinary process violates his constitutional rights to freedom of expression, conscience, and opinion as protected under Sections 24 and 25 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone. He contends that his comments during the television programme were made in the context of public interest discourse on judicial reform, access to justice, and democratic accountability.
Mr Marrah further maintains that subjecting him to disciplinary action over the same issues previously addressed by the Supreme Court amounts to double jeopardy. He argues that any further sanction would be disproportionate and unlawful, given that penalties were already imposed following his 2020 contempt conviction.
The lawyer has also applied for an interim injunction to restrain the Disciplinary Committee from continuing with the inquiry until the Supreme Court resolves the constitutional questions raised. He deposed in his affidavit that allowing the disciplinary process to proceed would expose him to reputational harm and professional damage which monetary compensation would not remedy.
Mr Marrah is no stranger to high-profile legal confrontations. He rose to national prominence following his post-election litigation against the Electoral Commission of Sierra Leone after the June and July 2023 elections. In that case, he challenged the Commission’s refusal to release disaggregated polling station results, arguing that the refusal breached the Right to Access Information Act of 2013 and Section 25 of the Constitution. His position received public backing from several national and international observer groups, including the Carter Centre, the European Union Election Observation Mission, the United States Embassy, and National Elections Watch.
His supporters describe the current dispute as part of a broader struggle over free expression, judicial accountability, and the role of lawyers in public debate. Critics argue that professional standards require restraint and respect for judicial institutions, regardless of advocacy goals.
It is unclear whether Mr Marrah’s application for a stay of the disciplinary proceedings in the Supreme Court will be assigned. The outcome is likely to shape not only the future of the disciplinary case but also wider debates around freedom of expression, judicial authority, and professional regulation within the legal system.
Credit: Sierraeye Magazine Sierraeyesalone
