Freetown, Sierra Leone – A dispute over the electronic registration process for the Sierra Leone Bar Association’s (SLBA) upcoming Annual General Meeting has emerged between incumbent President Tuma Adama Jabbi and presidential contender Martina Baindu Egbenda, raising questions about the legal basis for the new system and its impact on members’ rights.
In a press release dated July 13, 2026, Ms. Egbenda called for clarification on the electronic registration exercise, arguing it may impose additional qualifications for participation in the AGM beyond those prescribed by the Association’s governing instruments. The SLBA Executive responded on July 14, 2026, defending the system as a lawful administrative measure designed to ensure electoral integrity.
The disagreement comes ahead of the rescheduled AGM, now set for July 31 to August 1, 2026, at the Freetown International Conference Centre in Aberdeen. The event will feature elections for key leadership positions, including the presidency, and will be held under the theme: “Trade, Finance & Law: The Legal Profession’s Role in Facilitating Global Economic Integration.”
Egbenda Challenges Legal Basis of Electronic Registration
Ms. Egbenda, a prominent legal practitioner and current Administrator and Registrar General of Sierra Leone, raised concerns about the purpose, legal basis, and effect of what she described as a “so-called electronic registration process” involving a “unique code.”
In her press release, Egbenda distinguished between two distinct activities: the Annual Conference, an administrative event organized by the Executive, and the Annual General Meeting, which she described as “a statutory meeting governed by the Companies Act 2009 (as amended), and the Memorandum and Articles of Association.”
“The legal requirements governing participation in the Annual General Meeting cannot properly be conflated with administrative arrangements relating to the Conference,” she stated.
Egbenda questioned the methodology behind the unique code system, stating: “Members have not been informed how these codes are generated, what methodology or algorithm is used, whether the codes contain embedded information relating to individual members, or who designed, approved and now administers the system.”
Citing Article 32 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association, which states that “fully paid up members are entitled to participate in and vote at the Annual General Meeting,” Egbenda argued that eligibility is determined solely by the governing instruments. She maintained that “an administrative electronic registration process cannot impose additional qualifications unless expressly authorised by the Memorandum and Articles of Association.”
“The Directors cannot, by administrative notice or practice, impose additional qualifications or procedural requirements that are inconsistent with the governing instruments of the Association. Any exercise of power beyond those conferred by the Memorandum and Articles is ultra vires and without legal effect,” Egbenda asserted.
She called upon the Directors to clarify that the registration exercise relates solely to attendance at the Annual Conference, confirm it is not a prerequisite for participation in the AGM or elections, and publish a list of eligible members based “solely upon the objective criteria prescribed by Article 32.”
SLBA Executive Defends Administrative Measure
The SLBA Executive, through its response, rejected Egbenda’s interpretation, asserting that the Association has acted “within the powers conferred upon it by the registered M&A and in fulfilment of its responsibility to ensure that the affairs of the Association, including its electoral processes, are conducted lawfully, transparently and efficiently.”
The Executive cited Article 19 of the Memorandum and Articles, which provides that “the business of the Association shall be managed by the Executive, which may exercise all powers and perform all acts on behalf of the Association except those expressly reserved for members in General Meeting.”
“The electronic registration exercise falls within these powers,” the Executive stated, adding that “the action of the Executive does not amend the M&A, introduce new membership requirements, or alter the rights of members.”
According to the Executive, the system serves legitimate purposes including: verifying that members satisfy eligibility requirements under Article 32; establishing an accurate register of eligible voters; reducing duplication, impersonation and administrative errors; and ensuring that each eligible member receives a secure voting credential and participates only once.
“The assertion that electronic registration constitutes an additional qualification for participation in the AGM or elections is misconceived,” the Executive responded. “The qualifications for participation are exclusively those prescribed under Article 32 of the M&A. Electronic registration merely verifies compliance with those existing requirements.”
The Executive also addressed transparency concerns, stating that “transparency does not require disclosure of technical security features or operational details that may compromise the integrity of the electoral process.”
Points of Agreement and Disagreement
Areas of Agreement:
Both parties agree that eligibility for participation in the AGM is governed by Article 32 of the M&A, which requires members to be fully paid up. Both also acknowledge the importance of transparency and credibility in the electoral process.
Areas of Disagreement:
The central dispute revolves around whether electronic registration constitutes an additional qualification for participation or merely an administrative mechanism to verify existing qualifications.
Egbenda argues that the Directors lack authority to impose procedural requirements inconsistent with the M&A, citing Article 29(e), which requires that “every rule made by the Directors shall be submitted to the next Annual General Meeting, where the members may, by resolution, amend or revoke it.”
The Executive counters that the registration process falls under its broad managerial authority under Articles 19, 29, and 30, and that administrative procedures “cannot be construed as an amendment to the M&A or an unlawful restriction on members’ rights.”
Context and Significance
The SLBA election has drawn attention to broader questions about the independence of the legal profession, particularly regarding Ms. Egbenda’s dual role as Administrator and Registrar General, a senior government position. Critics have raised concerns about whether the Bar can effectively hold the State accountable while being led by a senior government official.
The dispute also comes after the SLBA’s AGM was postponed from its original June 5-6 dates due to “logistical and other challenges beyond the control of the Directors.” The postponement period was to be used by the Treasurer to verify payments and reconcile bank records to determine eligibility of fully paid-up members.
The two contenders were scheduled to participate in a presidential debate on July 3, 2026, at the New Brookfields Hotel Hall in Freetown, organized by the Association to allow candidates to present their visions and engage on critical issues affecting the Bar.
Next Steps
The SLBA has encouraged “all eligible members to complete the registration process and participate fully in the forthcoming AGM and elections.”
Ms. Egbenda, however, stated she “does not consider it appropriate to participate in the so-called electronic registration exercise until this clarification is provided.”
The Association’s Executive has not indicated whether it will provide the additional clarifications requested by Egbenda, maintaining that the electronic registration system is a lawful administrative measure.
The rescheduled AGM and elections are set to proceed from July 31 to August 1, 2026, unless further postponement is announced. The outcome of this dispute could affect participation in the elections and ultimately shape the future leadership of the Sierra Leone Bar Association.
