Introduction
The Chief Justice of the Republic of Sierra Leone, Hon. Dr. Ade Renner-Thomas, on the 15th September 2005, concurrently launched the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers in Sierra Leone during the official launching of the Justice Sector Development Programme. Prior to this time, there has been a conspicuous absence in the justice system of any written guidelines to help Judicial Officers in regulating their judicial and personal conduct. Moreover, apart from the provisions of the Constitution, Act No. 6 of 1991, governing the removal of Judges for misconduct, there is no formal machinery available to members of the public for the processing of complaints against Judicial Officers for alleged misconduct. The purpose of this Code is to establish standards for ethical conduct of Judicial Officers. This initiative, though long over due, is however welcoming as the country is still in transition, consolidating the gains of reform after over a decade long war characterized by the collapse of state institutions with the Judiciary being one of the primary victims.
The need for reform in the justice sector in Sierra Leone cannot be over emphasized as it is very crucial in the post war recovery effort. The deviances in the justice system were created by years of political neglect and corruption. The Judiciary –which, prior to the war, barely existed in the provinces, and in Freetown was only accessible to those who had sufficient funds- was largely non-functional during the conflict. The low salaries of personnel who worked in the judiciary meant that magistrates, lawyers and judges were easy targets for bribery, intimidation and/ or manipulation. Consequently, it became the machinery used by the political hierarchy to persecute their opponents, whether real or imagined. As such, the lack of faith in the system contributed in no mean measure in exacerbating the growing disenchantment among the populace which subsequently led to the armed conflict.
The Sierra Leone Judiciary comprise “…all Judges, Magistrates, Registrars, Justices of the Peace and other persons carrying out judicial functions in Sierra Leone”, conferred with the responsibility for adjudicating “all matters civil and criminal including matters relating to [the] Constitution, and such other matters in respect of which Parliament may by order under an Act of Parliament confer jurisdiction on the judiciary”. In order to restore public confidence in the administration of justice; to enhance public respect for the judiciary; and to protect the reputation of individual Judicial Officers and the Judiciary as a whole, the judiciary is to be guided in their judicial functions. Therefore, in the spirit of judiciously performing their duties, the Sierra Leone judiciary has taken the initiative to regulate itself by introducing a Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers.
As stated in the text, the Code of Conduct is not only designed to provide guidance to Judicial Officers in regulating judicial conduct, but also intended to offer Government operatives, legal practitioners and the general public the opportunity to better understand and complement the effort of the judiciary. This piece, therefore, analyzes key provisions of the Code of Conduct vis-à-vis their applicability in Sierra Leone.
Judicial Independence
Judicial independence is a fundamental principle and prerequisite for the dispensation of justice in a democratic state. An independent, strong, respected and respectable judiciary is free from any form of political influence or interference by either the executive or legislative arm of government. Judges must be free to decide a matter before them based on the facts presented and in accordance with the dictates of the law. Judges should be free from any extraneous influences, inducement, pressures, threats or interference, direct or indirect, internal or external or for any reason.
In addition, the Code of Conduct states that a Judicial Officer should also be free from influence by his judicial colleagues and that they are required to exhibit high standards of judicial conduct. These conditions enshrined in the Code of Conduct are also provided for in Sec 120(3) of the 1991 Constitution.
Despite these elaborate provisions, conditions inhibiting the independence of the judiciary still continue to exist. One such condition is the appointment and security of tenure of office of Judicial Officers. Although sec 135(1) of the 1991 Constitution states that the President on the advice of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission and subject to Parliamentary approval shall have the power to appoint the Chief Justice and other judges of the superior court of judicature, sec136 provides that where the office of a High Court judge is vacant, the President may appoint a person who has held office as, or qualified for appointment as a judge of the superior court of judicature, even though he has already attained the retirement age or the age at which he shall vacate office. Under the latter provision, there is no need to seek Parliamentary approval, having secured it once. This therefore leaves the judge at the pleasure of the President who has power to terminate his appointment at will. Since these contract judges only serve at the pleasure of the President- they do not have security of tenure of office- there is the likelihood that they cannot be totally independent in the discharge of their official duties. In other words, in order to maintain his job, a judge may be tempted to succumb to the dictates of the President hence compromising his independence. The current protraction of the Omrie Golley trial is largely premised on this fact. Golley’s Defence Counsel, Charles Margai, has objected to the eligibility of the presiding Judge, Justice Samuel Ademusu. As a judge on contract, his tenure of office is highly contingent on the President’s prerogative and therefore, in Mr. Margai’s opinion, he (Ademusu) might easily subject himself to judicial manipulations from the Government in order to maintain his primary source of livelihood. The Supreme Court is yet to sit on the matter as another motion has been filled against the Chief Justice, who should preside at the Supreme Court, not to participate in the process for discussing matter pending ruling outside court.
Equality
Equality before the law is a primary standard that evinces adherence to the principle of the rule of law. The Code of Conduct makes specific emphasis for Judicial Officers to regulate their demeanor so as to ensure equality of all persons in accordance with the law. The actions of a Judicial Officer, therefore, by words or conduct should not manifest any form of bias or prejudice towards any person or group of persons that would advantage or disadvantage him before the law. In addition to this, Section 15 of the 1991 Constitution clearly states that all persons in Sierra Leone are entitled to fundamental rights and freedoms regardless of race, place of origin, political opinion, colour, creed or sex and that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled, without any discrimination, to the same protection of the law.
Whilst these provisions are very glaring, there are a number of practices that militates the full adjudication of the law indiscriminately. A typical example of inequality before the law is the age qualification to become a juror. Whereas a man can become a juror at 21 years, a woman on the contrary must be 30 years. This case distinctly contradicts gender equality for age qualification requirement of becoming a judicial officer in this respect.
In addition to this, the justice system in Sierra Leone does not provide equal opportunities for litigants. Whilst there is an office of a Director of Public Prosecution, there is no such provision for a Public Defender. This situation, therefore, does not offer equal opportunities for litigants to access justice. Hence, many a time, accused persons are arraign before court with no legal representation contrary to the provisions of the 1991 Constitution. One such example is the case of three persons charged to court 29th September, 2006 for allegedly stoning an SLRTC bus and assaulting a Hughes security guard at Rokupa Estate in the East-end of Freetown. Whilst there were four persons prosecuting the matter on the one hand, the accused persons on the other could not boast of any Defence counsel. Thus, the presiding Magistrate of Court No.1, Sam Margai, therefore asked them to cross-examine the witnesses from the dock where, because of lack of legal knowledge, almost implicated them further. A series of other rules and practices exist that inhibit the provision that yearns for equality before the law.
Impartiality and Impropriety
Justice itself cannot be applied without impartiality. As such, Judicial Officers have come under intensive public scrutiny to dispense justice fairly within the ambits of the law. Therefore, the Code of Conduct makes very clear projections as to how Judicial Officers need to dispose themselves in order for them to perform their duties free from a cynical eye. This revolves around their associations and the avoidance of favoritism, prejudice, independence, partiality and the misuse of their prestige in the performance of their functions as Judicial Officers.
Furthermore, the Code of Conduct 5.3a makes it abundantly clear that a Judicial Officer shall cease all partisan political activity involvement and shall refrain from conduct that might give rise to the appearance that he is engaged in political activity. Moreover, paragraph 5.3b clearly states that a Judicial Officer shall not attend a political gathering, political fund raising events, make speeches for a political organization, and contribute to political parties or campaigns.
However, despite these highly structured principles in the Code of Conduct, some Judicial Officers are yet to go strictly according to the letter. A case in point is the attendance of the opening of the Sierra Leone Peoples Party (SLPP) Western Area Branch office by the presiding Magistrate of Court No.1a, Adrian Fischer. It is important to note that this event happened just after Magistrate Fischer resumed duties after he was temporarily suspended by the office of the Chief Justice. He was accused of bringing the judiciary and the office of the Chief Justice into disrepute, gross dereliction of duty and abuse of office and insubordination and disrespect for lawful authority after he failed to submit on time documents relating to the inquest regarding the death of Harry Yansaneh, former acting editor of For di People Newspaper. It is presumed that, the verdict of the inquest which was issued against Hon. Dr. Fatmata Hassan, a member of Parliament for the ruling SLPP and others, did not go down well with some higher authorities. By attending a meeting of such a political party, even against the spirit and letter of the Code of Conduct, only shows that he was trying to mend fences at the expense of compromising judicial impartiality and impropriety. The million Dollars question here is: why did the Judicial Ethics Committee not institute any procedure against Magistrate Fisher for the alleged flouting of the Code of Conduct?
Conclusion
The transition period offers Sierra Leone a unique
opportunity to reform the various institutions crumbled by the war with the Judiciary, owing to its indispensability, being no exemption. The Sierra Leone Court Monitoring Programme (SLCMP), therefore, lauds the efforts of the Judiciary to institute minimum threshold to regulate its conduct in the form of issuing a Code of Conduct and in proposing for the establishment of a Judicial Ethics Committee.
The SLCMP holds the view that these guiding principles would serve as a mechanism for the attainment of a professional judiciary that is imperatively needed in Sierra Leone. However, living by these codes does not merely require stating them in a text; it also requires making provisions that will serve as deterrents to the conditions and practices that make Judicial Officers perform their duties unprofessionally as have been mentioned in the above paragraphs.