Sierra Leone's Auditor-General, Lara Taylor-Pearce, was removed from her position on December 20, 2024, a development that has drawn intense scrutiny regarding its constitutional adherence. The removal occurred after a prolonged period of suspension and investigations that spanned more than three years. Mohammed Kroma Esq. Stated unequivocally that the decision did not represent the culmination of a legitimate accountability procedure. Mr. Kroma characterized the action as "the last act of a three-year constitutional bypass," suggesting a deliberate circumvention of established legal frameworks. This event follows a period where Ms. Taylor-Pearce's office had conducted audits that reportedly uncovered significant financial irregularities within government ministries, departments, and agencies. Her tenure had been marked by consistent efforts to promote transparency and accountability in public finance management, often bringing her office into direct conflict with powerful interests.
Constitutional Breach by Executive
President Julius Maada Bio suspended Madam Lara Taylor-Pearce from her position as Auditor-General on November 11, 2021, prior to the engagement of a tribunal. Mohammed Kroma Esq. Stated that this sequence of events represented a clear constitutional breach. Mr. Kroma emphasized that Section 137(6) of the Sierra Leonean Constitution specifies that "referral to a tribunal is the non-negotiable condition precedent for any suspension." This provision, he argued, establishes a clear order of operations that must be followed to ensure due process and prevent arbitrary removals. The President's decision to suspend her before any such referral, therefore, directly contravened this fundamental constitutional requirement.
According to Mr. Kroma, the Executive's action of suspending the Auditor-General before referring the matter to a tribunal inverted the constitutionally mandated process. He contended that "by inverting this sequence, the Executive acted ultra vires," meaning beyond its legal powers. This assessment suggests the Executive exceeded its legal authority by not adhering to the established constitutional framework for the removal or suspension of the Auditor-General. The prescribed procedure explicitly requires a tribunal to be involved before any suspension can be legitimately enacted, ensuring an independent review of the grounds for removal. The Executive's pre-emptive suspension thus set a precedent that undermined the very principles of constitutional governance and the separation of powers.
Judiciary's Role in Abdication
Mohammed Kroma Esq. Stated that the Rule of Law in Sierra Leone in 2024 was not undermined solely by the Executive, but rather by judicial abdication. Mr. Kroma asserted, "History will record that in 2024, the Rule of Law in Sierra Leone was not murdered by the Executive; it was a consequence of judicial abdication." This powerful statement notes a perceived failure of the judiciary to uphold its constitutional duties and act as a check on executive power. The implication is that while the Executive initiated the unconstitutional process, the Judiciary's inaction allowed it to proceed to its conclusion.
The Judiciary reportedly employed jurisdictional technicalities, avoiding a substantive ruling on the constitutional breach for one full year. This approach allowed an administrative process, which Mr. Kroma characterized as illegal, to supersede the explicit wording of the law. By dismissing Madam Taylor-Pearce’s initial petition in November 2022 and refusing to stay the Tribunal while core constitutional questions remained unresolved, the Supreme Court effectively allowed the clock to run out on her legal challenges. This strategic use of procedural delays meant that the fundamental questions regarding the legality of her suspension were never definitively addressed by the highest court. The Supreme Court’s actions, including dismissing Madam Taylor-Pearce’s initial petition in November 2022 and declining to stay the Tribunal's proceedings while fundamental constitutional questions remained unresolved, effectively allowed the process to continue without meaningful judicial intervention. Mr. Kroma indicated that this inaction by the Supreme Court contributed significantly to the timeline that culminated in the Auditor-General's removal, effectively sanctioning an unconstitutional process through its silence and procedural rulings.
Legacy and Rule of Law
Mohammed Kroma Esq. Commented on the circumstances surrounding Ms. Taylor-Pearce's departure, asserting that her removal was not due to any legal transgression on her part. Mr. Kroma stated, "Lara Taylor-Pearce did not fall because she broke the law. She fell because those sworn to protect the law chose to look away." This statement suggests that the Auditor-General's removal stemmed from a failure of institutions responsible for upholding legal principles rather than from any misconduct by Ms. Taylor-Pearce herself. The observation implies a broader concern about the enforcement and protection of the rule of law in Sierra Leone, noting the perceived inaction of those tasked with safeguarding constitutional provisions and legal processes. Her case, in Mr. Kroma's view, represents a critical moment for Sierra Leone's constitutional democracy, where the independence of key oversight institutions is being severely tested. The long-term implications for accountability and transparency in public service remain a significant concern for the nation.
