By *Augustine Sorie-Sengbe Marrah Esq. (Pro-democracy Activist lawyer)

A year today(7/12/2024), the Hon. Justice Nicholas Browne-Marke JSC was appointed to act in the absence of the substantive Chief Justice who was sent on an involuntary indefinite leave. To be clear, I was neither an ally nor an adversary of the Justice Edwards’ reign—I was performing my bounden duty, as I always do, to hold power wielders to account , whether in the executive, parliamentary or judicial levers of government and to challenge excesses of governance. And so, I (and perhaps a few other legal practitioners including at least, in the open, one of the Judges) decried the unconstitutionality of the decision to send the substantive Chief Justice home and have Justice Browne-Marke act in his stead. But those who perceived the news as end of last year’s(2023) glad tidings were in the majority and did not appear to be willing to give any hoot about constitutionality or its excess. They were up in arms with expediency, touting necessity over legality. The litany of issues such as internecine beefs, the divide and conquer leadership stratagem and the many victims of judicial injustice during the tenure of Justice Edwards rendered the constitutionality arguments, in their view, only pleasant for academic consumption. The widely-believed avalanche of harm caused to the body of justice during the tenure of Justice Edwards was the overriding consideration. Majority sighed _good riddance_. The evil that men do may just be living next door with them.

For many, it was a perfect time to move on to a new dispensation in the judiciary. To turn to a new page. Justice Browne-Marke, one of the most brilliant jurists of the current dispensation of benchers was appointed, though in an acting capacity, to do the page-turner. With him at the helm, expectations were untamed, so too was the impatience of many to restore at least a modicum of respectability to the corridors of justice. The stage was set for Justice Browne-Marke to succeed—the overwhelming sentiments of support at his albeit temporary appointment was the marker. Many at bar, the bench, court users and staff, threw their cloaks of support on him. To confront corruption and injustice within the machinery of justice and to restore the nobility of and the people’s confidence in the judiciary. For them, he had a messianic role despite the uncertainty of his acting tenure. This support unlike that of his predecessor was not meant for transactional benefits. It was simply for justice, for fairness, for equality and for the dignity of the institution. A win for justice was going to be a win for everyone. An independent and effective judiciary might just be the silver bullet for the boundless and unquantifiable excesses of executive power.

In his opening act, Justice Browne-Marke assigned more than half a thousand cases which Justice Edwards had proverbially refrigerated in his apparent design to deny litigants access to justice. Those cases ranged from politically sensitive matters to petty matters which were not spared in his tampering penchant. By all indications, Justice Browne-Marke started on a high and propitious note. Unfortunately, the high-achieving results appeared to be as temporary as his tenure. Once the honeymoon period fizzled out, the old-habits-die-hard resurfaced, so did the perception of political launderings within the judiciary. It seems Justice Edwards’ leadership ghost keeps haunting the judiciary. The leadership difference which was anticipated between the acting and the substantive seems no longer feasible or at least imminent. The lines have become blurred. The spokes of the judiciary’s wheels have fallen off one after the other. The previous cabal-esque administration which characterised Justice Edwards’ tenure seems to be slowly re-emerging. The pro-acting versus the pro-substantive now seems to be the new emblem of the judiciary. The litigants are caught in the crossfire. Political biddings are widely perceived to be back on the stock market of the judiciary. The uncertainties of justice now loom large. Political interests appear to many as being back in the driver’s seat of justice as they were prior to a year ago. The only difference between then and now is that those who had supported a regime change in the judiciary still have their mouths agape. They are in utter disbelief that the more heads change at the judiciary, the more the habits remain the same.

A year on, the once-held hopes seem in flight, expectations appear to be crashing and frustrations and discontentment may just be re-emerging in full glare. As always, those who benefit from the pro-acting regime are at loggerheads with those who clamour for the return of the pro-substantive. Sadly, justice is yet again orphaned by the clash of competing interests. And so, those who long and thirst for justice, now only look to the hills from whence cometh their help.

The author, *Augustine Sorie-Sengbe Marrah Esq. is Pro-democracy Activist lawyer