By Jeneba Conteh.
In a high-profile case that has sparked widespread public interest, Michael Magai, the plaintiff, has filed legal action against Chief Jibao Russell, the Paramount Chief of Lower Banta Chiefdom in Gbangbatoke, Moyamba District. The case, which is currently before Justice Alhaji Momoh Jah Stevens at the Freetown High Court, centres on serious allegations of corruption and embezzlement involving funds designated for the development of the chiefdom. Magai is seeking an interim injunction to prevent Chief Russell from continuing to act in his capacity as paramount chief while the court deliberates on the matter.
The plaintiff contends that Russell has failed to account for substantial amounts of money that were entrusted to him for community development projects, raising critical questions about financial management and accountability within the chiefdom. The legal framework for this petition is grounded in Section 13 of the Chieftaincy Act of 2009, which governs matters related to chieftaincy in Sierra Leone. The case was filed by Magai’s attorney, B. J. Reffle, who argues that the allegations against Russell are serious enough to warrant immediate judicial intervention. The petition is particularly poignant, as it represents the interests of Nancy R. Johnny, the original petitioner, who has since passed away. Following her death, Magai has taken up the mantle to continue the legal fight against Chief Russell, asserting that the paramount chief has misappropriated funds intended for the development of the Lower Banta Chiefdom. In addition to Chief Russell, Magai has named several other respondents in the case, including the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the provincial secretary for the Southern Province, the National Electoral Commission, and the Attorney General and Minister of Justice.
This broad array of respondents highlights the multifaceted nature of the issues at stake, involving not only local governance but also higher levels of government oversight. The motion for an interim injunction was filed on December 19, 2024, and seeks to bar Chief Russell from acting in his official capacity as paramount chief during the ongoing legal proceedings. The affidavit submitted by Magai outlines the necessity for this injunction, arguing that allowing Russell to continue his duties could further complicate the legal issues and undermine the integrity of the chiefdom’s governance. In support of his claims, Magai’s affidavit includes several exhibits. Exhibit MM1 is a copy of a petition dated January 29, 2010, which challenges the legitimacy of Chief Russell’s position as paramount chief. Exhibit MM2 consists of a judgment from the High Court dated March 9, 2011, indicating that the hearing was conducted without the attendance of representatives from the law officers’ department, raising concerns about procedural fairness.
Exhibit MM3 details the application and supporting affidavit that led to the court’s initial order based on the judgment from March 9, 2011. Exhibit MM4 presents a judgment from July 11, 2011, which was set aside by the High Court due to irregularities in the proceedings. This decision highlights that both the paramount chief and the Attorney General were not allowed to present their case, emphasising the importance of due process in legal proceedings.
The affidavit also states that the first petitioner, now deceased, sought to have the case remitted to the High Court for a speedy hearing and determination. Counsel B. J. Reffle, representing Magai, argues that the evidence presented in the exhibits indicates a pattern of corruption and mismanagement of funds by Chief Russell. He insists that the Anti-Corruption Commission has been investigating these allegations and that the funds in question were specifically allocated for the development of the Lower Banta Chiefdom.
In stark contrast, Edward Sarkoh, the counsel representing all respondents, filed an affidavit in opposition on January 6, 2025, challenging the application for an injunction. Sarkoh argues that granting the injunction would lead to chaos and unrest in the Lower Banta Chiefdom, as Chief Russell has been in office since 2010. He contends that removing the paramount chief after fourteen years of service would create serious problems and potentially dangerous situations for the community. Sarkoh further argues that injunctions are typically granted to preserve fairness, and in this case, the paramount chief has been duly sworn into office for over a decade.
He suggests that the Court of Appeals has ruled that the matter must proceed without the necessity of an injunction, indicating that the legal process should continue without disrupting the existing leadership. The respondents’ counsel also raises concerns about the potential for instability if the injunction is granted, emphasising the paramount chief’s role in maintaining peace and order within the chiefdom. He insists that the court should allow Chief Russell to continue serving in his capacity to ensure the stability and continuity of governance in the chiefdom. After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Stevens has adjourned the matter, with the next court date set for May 9, 2025. The outcome of this case will be closely monitored, as it not only pertains to the future of Chief Russell but also raises broader questions about accountability and governance within Sierra Leone’s chieftaincy system.
As this case progresses, it underscores the critical need for transparency and integrity in local leadership, particularly in regions where traditional governance structures play a pivotal role in community affairs. The ramifications of this legal battle will likely have lasting implications for the residents of Lower Banta Chiefdom and serve as a significant test of the effectiveness of legal and regulatory frameworks designed to combat corruption in Sierra Leone. The court’s decision will not only affect the individuals involved but could also set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, shaping the landscape of governance in the region.
