Reparation is one of the main approaches societies that have gone through violent conflict or repressive regimes use to enhance reconcilaition, healing, and sustainable peace. The concept itself is not new, it has been used by communities for centuries. It is also used in legal, ethical, political and religious circles. In legal terms, reparation refers to the obligation of the perpetrators to repair the harm done to the victims of an injustice. Furthermore, a government may also be legally responsible for reparation for breaches committed either by them or their agents.
Reparation is a basic human rights. Every major international human rights instrument do contain provisions for reparation of victims of violent conflict and repressive regime. International law obliges states to provide victims of human rights to effective remedy in an event of breach. Some of these laws include Art. 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 2.3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 14 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Arts 7 and 21 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Further, on 16 December 2005, the United Nations General Assembly after 16 years of research and consultation adopted the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation. Sierra Leone was part of this process, and it has also ratified the above named instruments.
In addition, Sec 28(1) of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone guarantees victims of human rights violations to seek remedy in the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone. Moreover, Art. XXIX of the Lome Peace Agreement provided that the Government established effective remedy for victims of the conflict. Sec 15(2) of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Act 2000 mandated the Commission to make recommendations that would respond to victims needs and enhance healing and reconciliation. To this end, when the TRC Report was published in October 2004, after two years of work, it recommended that reparation be provided for victims of the conflict. The reparation is meant “to provide redress to the victims of human rights violations.” [i] It is also intended to rehabilitate victims by way of providing them with “…service packages and symbolic measures which acknowledge the past and the harm done to victims and gives [them] the opportunity to move on.” [ii] In essence, the measures to be taken were meant to restore the dignity of the victims since they have been incapacitated by the war. Most of the victims of the war, were fully able to fend for themselves prior to their abuse. However, the war tremendously diminished their capacity to be self reliant, especially those that were physically handicapped. Of importance also, is the need to acknowledge symbolic gesture. This will tremendously enhance healing and reconciliation, which is of utmost necessity for sustenable peace.
One of the key component of Sierra Leone’s reparation programme is the establishment of a victims’ trust fund. The Government’s National Commission for Social Action (NaCSA) was recommended to be the implementing agency. In March 2005, most of the speakers during National Victims Commemorations Conference urged for the implementation of the reparations programme, including the establishment of the Trust Fund. To that end, an Action Plan Monitoring Group was established. This group is yet to record any achievement apart from the numerous meetings being held with various stakeholders, including the recent meeting held with Vice President Berewa. The purpose of the meeting held with the Vice President was to gauge the Government’s plan regarding the implementation of the reparations programme. Unfortunately, the Vice President did not tell them anything new but the usual rhetoric, that the timely implementation of the reparations programme is contingent on the availability of resources. This has been the excuse of the Government since the Report was published. Earlier, the government’s Whitepaper in response to the TRC report tacitly acknowledged the recommendation for reparation, anchoring its implementation largely on the availability of resources. However, as the Sierra Leone Court Monitoring Programme has argued before that, the most important resource required to facilitate the implementation of the reparations programme, is governmental commitment to the process. This has been conspicuously absent. The Government only approved NaCSA’s role as the lead agency in the implementation of the reparations programme in August 2006, nearly two years after the Commission so recommended. Nevertheless, the people of Sierra Leone would want to know if this is the Government’s official endorsement of the TRC recommendations for reparations. If that is the case, it will only be recorded as a welcome news.
In a recent broadcast over the UN Radio breakfast show, the Deputy Commissioner of NaCSA stated that they have already started implementing aspects of the reparation. While the SLCMP lauds the effort of the Commission regarding their contribution to post-conflict reconstruction, it also want to state that there is a distinction between routine governmental responsibility and reparations. The repainting of schools and hospitals is basically a routine governmental responsibility; while allowing victims (whose capacity to earn for themselves was diminished) and their families access to education and health facilities free of charge may be considered as reparation.
As the reparation programme stands now, there is so much to be done to effect any changes. Most of the physically handicapped victims have been relocated. However, the Government still need to do more; the victims need free access to medical facilities, their children need to be given free quality education, those who can no longer work need to be given their monthly pension, and those who can, needs to be capacitated etc. However, as the Programme stands now, there is so much to do. The SLCMP, therefore, wants to urge the Government and all stakeholders to put their hands on deck so as to speed up the implementation of the reparations
[i] TRC Report, Vol. 2, Executive Summary, Para 80 p. 20
[ii] Ibid Reparations, Para 23 p. 232