The indefinite suspension of Lara Taylor-Pearce is unconstitutional and an affront to our democracy!

In my opinion, the suspension of Madam Lara Taylor-Peace is the second most notorious constitutional ruckus of the last decade. The sacking of the former Vice-President, Chief Samuel Samsumana, whipped up quite an indelible constitutional frenzy. On that occasion, leading constitutional and legal figures brooked no delay in labelling the action an overreach of executive power by the then President. The matter was eventually adjudicated by the Supreme Court but the angst against the sacking was even more inflamed by the unpopular decision of the highest court of the land. Six years later, here we are with the indefinite suspension of the head of the Audit Service Sierra Leone whom the SLPP government in their self-vaunted Government Transition Team report had acclaimed as “probably Sierra Leone’s most effective institution…led by the Auditor-General, the dynamic Lara Taylor Pearce”. Mrs. Taylor-Pearce no doubt commands respect from both leading political parties, activists, journalists, and the public. Such respect she has earned from the quality and objectivity of her audit reports which have usually exposed corruption and mismanagement of funds within governments, past and present. On Thursday 11^th November 2021, the BBC journalist Umaru Fofana, broke the news of her indefinite suspension alongside one of her deputies, Mr. Tamba Momoh. However, before her suspension the Auditor General had come under a hailstorm of intimidation and harassment by state officials and shockingly some leaders of other public integrity institutions. The saying that coming events cast their shadows cannot therefore be more apt.

As a governance and rule of law activist, the indefinite suspension of the Auditor General and one of her deputies is in my humble opinion unconstitutional, unlawful and yet another scandalous affront to our democracy. Let me explain the premise for such an opinion. Firstly, by section 119(9) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone, the procedural prescriptions for removal of a High Court judge from their office, also apply to the Auditor General. This evinces the intention of the framers of our Constitution to accord the very same protection against arbitrary executive removal of judges to the Auditor General. By this provision, the office of the Auditor General is insulated from normal executive superintendence. Section 137(4) of the Constitution provides that the Auditor General shall only be removed from office for inability to perform the functions of the office or for misconduct. It should be noted that in either instance, the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (“JLSC” of which the Chief Justice is the head) would have to make a representation to the President that a question of the removal of the Auditor General ought to be investigated. By section 137(5), after receiving such a representation from the JLSC in regard the question of investigation, the President shall in consultation with the JLSC appoint a tribunal to investigate the complaint. As soon as the matter is referred to the tribunal, the Auditor General shall be suspended by the President pending the said investigation by the tribunal. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Auditor General shall only be removed on a recommendation for removal by the tribunal and an approval by two-thirds majority in Parliament.

From the above-referenced provisions, the determination of a matter for investigation should be made by the JLSC. In other words, it is the JLSC that determines that a matter has met the threshold for investigation and not the presidency. In this case, in the letter of the Deputy Minister of Justice dated 8^th November 2021 (I’ll stay away from the controversy regarding who should have signed that letter, it is de minimis in relation to the unconstitutionality of the very reference), it is stated that several complaints have been made to the President concerning the Auditor General and her deputy. The signer of the said letter hurriedly concludes, maiming natural justice in his haste, that such complaints amount to misconduct or lack of professional performance. It is clear from that correspondence and noting that no tribunal had been set up as at 11^th November 2021, that the President’s indefinite suspension of the Auditor General and her deputy was ergo informed by those complaints. In essence, the Auditor General has been suspended just on receipt of complaints from unknown persons and not by any representation from the JLSC to the President as the Constitution mandates. Furthermore, she was suspended even before a tribunal is appointed contrary to the dictates of the Constitution. This flagrant infraction of our grundnorm therefore makes the indefinite suspension unlawful.

There has been a flurry of condemnation or at the very minimum, deep concerns by many interest groups and leading activists in Sierra Leone over the said indefinite suspension of Madam Taylor-Pearce. The Institute for Governance Research describes the Auditor General as “the beacon of integrity in the field of Public financial management”. Members of the Budget Advocacy Network note in a statement that the indefinite suspension of the Auditor-General “undermines public accountability…further hampers efforts in maintaining fiscal discipline and accountable use of public resources.” 50-50, the leading women’s rights group expressed fear that the suspension “negates the positive steps taken by the government with the recent formulation of the Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Policy (GEWE, 2020) and the Gender Empowerment Bill (2021).” While this government is taking legislative action to empower women in Sierra Leone, they are in conduct attacking the woman who has epitomised excellent female leadership in government for the last decade. I think that the gender empowerment legislation would count for nought if the conduct of our leaders towards women in top decision-making positions remains galling. 

How the government treats the leaders of public integrity institutions determines their degree of commitment to transparency and accountability. For a government that campaigned on fiscal discipline and accountability, to make such move to suspend the Auditor-General in view of the antecedent harassment and intimidation by senior government officials, erodes a great chunk of the public’s confidence in such commitment. Even more perplexing is the timing of the suspension, just when the 2020 Audit is set to be released.  A senior female colleague remarked in a WhatsApp group that this conduct is akin to removing the Chief Electoral Commissioner on the eve of announcement of the presidential election results or suspending Supreme Court judges just when they are about to deliver a judgment on a presidential election petition. This is the stark enormity of such suspension.

Let me repeat that in my view, what President Bio has done by sacking the most trusted public servant in Sierra Leone is unconstitutional and a dereliction of his commitment to building good governance institutions. I want to be on record on this position!