When the Law Ends, but the Constitution Still Speaks
The Koroma case offers Sierra Leone an opportunity to transform a lawful prosecutorial decision into a lasting constitutional settlement.
By Yoni Emmanuel Sesay
The Attorney-General’s decision to discontinue the treason proceedings against former President Ernest Bai Koroma has brought one of Sierra Leone’s most consequential criminal cases to an unexpected close. It is a decision that has inevitably generated political debate. Yet before opinion hardens along familiar partisan lines, it is worth recognising what has actually happened—and what has not.
Legally, the Attorney-General has exercised a constitutional power that has long formed part of Sierra Leone’s criminal justice system. Politically, the decision creates an opportunity to lower tensions after a period that has tested the country’s institutions and strained public confidence. Those two realities are not in conflict. They can, and should, exist side by side.
What deserves closer examination is not whether the Attorney-General acted lawfully. On that question, the Constitution provides a clear answer. The more important question is whether a lawful discontinuance, in a case of such constitutional significance, should also become the foundation for lasting legal and national closure.
That distinction matters.
Criminal prosecutions are usually concerned with the guilt or innocence of an accused person. Cases involving a former Head of State inevitably carry a much wider constitutional weight. They shape public confidence in the justice system, influence political stability and affect how future generations judge the resilience of democratic institutions. Decisions taken in such cases rarely end with the courtroom. Their consequences often extend far beyond it.
The response to the Attorney-General’s decision has, in many respects, reflected an understanding of that wider responsibility.
Former President Koroma did not portray the discontinuance as a personal victory. Instead, he spoke of peace, justice and reconciliation, expressing gratitude to President Julius Maada Bio, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and ECOWAS for the efforts that helped create the conditions for dialogue. Whether one agrees with every aspect of his statement is beside the point. Its tone recognised that this moment belongs to the nation as much as it belongs to any individual.
His legal team also adopted a measured approach. Rather than engaging in political celebration, they explained the legal effect of the Attorney-General’s notice. The prosecution had ended. The bail conditions no longer applied. The former President was free to return to Sierra Leone whenever he chose. That clarification helped separate the legal consequences of the decision from the inevitable political commentary that followed.
Taken together, these responses have lowered the political temperature rather than inflaming it. That is no small achievement in a country where constitutional disputes have too often become political battlegrounds.
For that reason, the Attorney-General’s decision deserves recognition as an act of constitutional restraint rather than constitutional weakness.
Critics who suggest that discontinuing the proceedings was somehow unlawful overlook the nature of the Attorney-General’s office. The Constitution entrusts that office with responsibility for criminal prosecutions, including the power to institute proceedings, assume conduct of cases begun by others and discontinue prosecutions before judgment where the law permits. The power to enter a nolle prosequi, now reflected in section 45 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2024, is therefore not an extraordinary innovation. It is an established feature of prosecutorial discretion.
Every mature legal system recognises that criminal justice is not served simply by pressing ahead with every prosecution regardless of changing circumstances. Prosecutors must weigh the available evidence, the public interest, the interests of justice and the wider implications for society. There are occasions when continuing a prosecution is plainly the correct course. There are others when discontinuance better serves justice.
Nothing presently in the public domain suggests that the Attorney-General acted outside those constitutional boundaries.
That should be acknowledged without hesitation.
At the same time, accepting the legality of the decision does not mean the constitutional conversation is over.
Law often distinguishes between what may be done and what ought to follow. A decision can be perfectly lawful while still leaving broader constitutional questions unresolved. This case illustrates that distinction.
A nolle prosequi ends the proceedings before the court. It removes the immediate burden of prosecution from the accused. It does not, however, amount to a judicial determination of innocence or guilt. Nor does it necessarily prevent future proceedings should circumstances permitted by law arise.
In ordinary criminal cases, that flexibility is both sensible and necessary. Prosecutors should not be permanently barred where new evidence later emerges or where justice genuinely requires further action.
The Koroma case, however, is not an ordinary prosecution.
It concerns a former President, allegations of treason, the events of November 2023 and issues that have attracted national, regional and international attention. Its significance extends beyond the interests of the prosecution and the defence. It touches the credibility of institutions, the confidence of citizens and the long-term health of Sierra Leone’s constitutional democracy.
That is why this moment deserves to be viewed not simply through the narrow lens of criminal procedure, but through the wider perspective of constitutional governance.
The law has spoken.
The Constitution, however, may still have more to say.
Leave a Reply