Lesson 1: Constitutional and Administrative Law for Postgraduates

SUMMARY

• Rights + Remedies = Real Protection.
• s 28: Supreme Court forum; preventive ("likely to be"); wide remedial discretion.
• Writs: habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto; plus declaration, injunction, damages.
• PIL: India relaxed standing (epistolary); SA s 38; Kenya arts 22/258; SL practice expanding by purposive argument.

SUMMARY

• s 27: grounds-based non-discrimination with exceptions.
• Formal vs substantive equality; ameliorative measures (GEWE Act 2022 quota; SA s 9(2)).
• De jure vs de facto rights; bridges: legal aid, PIL, affirmative action.

Case Study: Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978)

Facts. The Indian government impounded the passport of journalist Maneka Gandhi "in the public interest", giving no reasons and no hearing. She challenged the seizure under art 21 of the Indian Constitution, which protects life and personal liberty against deprivation "except according to procedure established by law". Issue. Is any procedure enacted by law enough, however arbitrary, or must the procedure itself be fair, just and reasonable? Decision. A seven-judge Supreme Court bench held that "procedure established by law" means fair, just and reasonable procedure, not any procedure Parliament chooses; arbitrary, oppressive procedure violates art 21 read with the equality and freedom articles, which interlock rather than stand in silos.

Principles. (a) Procedural due process is implicit in liberty. (b) Fundamental rights are read together, each reinforcing the others. (c) Administrative action affecting rights demands natural justice, the bridge into administrative law. Why it matters in Sierra Leone. It shows how a court can convert a thin textual guarantee into a thick shield, a model for reading ss 17 and 23 generously, and it connects constitutional rights to the fair-hearing doctrines of Part III.

Sierra Leone’s Live Controversies (2026): Reading Current Events Constitutionally

The lecture materials mention two names every student now knows: Lansana Dumbuya and Zainab Sheriff. Handle them with care in examinations: as at mid-2026 these are ongoing or recently concluded first-instance proceedings, not settled constitutional precedents, and any statement of their "holdings" would be premature. What is verifiable is this. Dumbuya, Secretary-General of the opposition APC, was charged in February 2026 under the Public Order Act 1965 with incitement and insulting conduct arising from remarks at a party meeting; a magistrate initially refused bail and remanded him to the Pademba Road Male Correctional Centre before bail was later granted, and the Lawyers’ Society warned that prosecuting political speech risks undermining constitutional freedoms. Zainab Sheriff, an activist, was convicted in April 2026 under the same Act on counts of incitement and threatening language over rally remarks and sentenced to four years, a sentence the Lawyers’ Society publicly criticised as excessive and civil society debated as a free-expression and proportionality problem.

The constitutional questions these cases put on the table are classic Chapter III material: whether s 12 of the Public Order Act 1965, a colonial-era speech offence surviving the 2020 repeal of criminal libel, is "reasonably required in a democratic society" under s 25; whether pre-trial detention for speech offences respects ss 17 and 23; whether sentencing for words satisfies proportionality; and whether enforcement is even-handed across the political divide, an s 27 and rule-of-law question. A first-class answer states the law, applies the proportionality grammar of Chapter 12, and refrains from asserting outcomes the courts have not yet reached. SUMMARY - Ransome-Kuti: rights antecedent to political society (Eso JSC); natural law in judicial form.

• Maneka Gandhi: procedure must be fair, just, reasonable; rights interlock; due process bridges into administrative law.
• Dumbuya and Sheriff (2026): live Public Order Act prosecutions raising s 25 expression, s 17/23 detention and fair trial, proportionality and even-handedness; cite as current controversies, not precedents.