The High Court of Sierra Leone has ordered Court of Appeal Judge Momoh Jah Stevens to pay a monthly child-support allowance of NLe 10,000, starting December 2025. The order follows DNA test results confirming his biological relationship to a child at the centre of a highly publicised paternity dispute.
Presiding Judge Augustine K. Musa noted that independent authorities oversaw the collection, sealing and submission of DNA samples, underscoring the procedural integrity of the DNA process.
“The results are scientifically certain and the court now orders maintenance and other reliefs in the interest of the child,” said Justice Musa.
The dispute blew into the open in December 2024, when law student Edwina Hawa Jamiru (then aged 19) released a video claiming a long-term romantic relationship with Judge Stevens, a resulting pregnancy, and his alleged abandonment of her and their child. 
In May 2025 Judge Stevens filed an originating summons (Misc. App. 233/25) seeking a judicial declaration of paternity.  The court ordered DNA tests on October 6, 2025, under Section 83 of the Child Rights Act No. 7 of 2007, and granted injunctions to prevent publication of case details. 
The case attracted national scrutiny because of Judge Stevens’ seniority in the judiciary and because Jamiru accused him of sexual exploitation, saying that she believed their relationship was based on trust before she became pregnant. 
In late September, the judiciary placed Judge Stevens on administrative leave and referred the matter to the Judicial & Legal Service Commission (JLSC), citing concerns over media coverage that could undermine the reputation of the judiciary. 
On October 24, the DNA results were made public. Laboratory reports from two accredited centres indicated a match with 99.999% accuracy. 
With the paternity confirmed, the court moved to fix monthly maintenance and a declaration of fatherhood. The full judgment is expected to spell out further details such as custody, inheritance rights and any modifications of terms.
The verdict has been widely welcomed by civil society groups and child-rights advocates as a landmark moment in accountability, particularly when a high-ranking judge is held to parental responsibilities. Analysts say it may set precedent for future paternity and maintenance claims involving senior public officials. Some commentators however warn about the risk of privacy violations and the ethical implications of forced DNA testing in child cases. 
Judge Musa’s decision underscores that no person — regardless of position — is above the law, and reinforces the judiciary’s duty to protect children’s rights and maintain public confidence in the legal system.
Further details of the court’s full decision — including custody arrangements, the duration of maintenance obligations and cost assessments — are expected to be released in the coming days.
By Joe Turay
