Children in Sierra Leone suffered immeasurably during the armed conflict that engulfed the country from 1991 to 2002. They were forced into assuming “dual identities” of both victim and perpetrator. Children witnessed the perpetration of violations during the armed conflict and in turn perpetrated appalling human rights violations against others.
Consequently, the end of the war in Sierra Leone saw the prevalence of orphaned, abandoned, unaccompanied and separated children, which has resulted in the dramatic rise in the number of street children in the country. Thousands more live with their families but spend a large portion of their time on the streets. Life on the streets has led to children being engaged in other forms of destructive behaviour, such as drug and substance abuse, criminal activity and confrontation with law enforcement officials.
In Sierra Leone , the laws relating to the definition of child are significantly inconsistent. There is no uniform age of majority throughout the country. In Chapter 31 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act 1960, for example, a child is defined as being “a person under the age of sixteen years.” In the Ordinance to Regulate the infliction of Corporal Punishment defines a child as aged 15 years or below. Chapter 44 of The Laws of Sierra Leone defines a “child” as “a person under the age of fourteen years” and a “young person” as “a person who is fourteen years of age or upwards and under the age of seventeen years.” Notwithstanding the distinction, the minimum age of criminal responsibility for juvenile offenders in Sierra Leone is, according to common law, ten years.
According to the “Beijing Rules,” a juvenile is defined as “a child or young person who, under the respective legal systems, may be dealt with for an offence in a manner which is different from an adult.” There is no age criterion contained here. The Child Rights Bill in Sierra Leone , however, defines a child as being “every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.” The Beijing Rules nonetheless provides that states should establish ‘a minimum age below which children shall be presumed not to have the capacity to infringe the penal law.’ That is ‘ doli incapax.’ In guidance of this, the Beijing Rules provide that the minimum age of criminal responsibility ‘shall not be fixed at too low an age level, bearing in mind the facts of emotional, mental and intellectual maturity’ of the offender.
Juvenile justice from a common and known perspective is essentially associated with children and young persons in conflict with the law. That is to say, it touches on the way and manner in which justice is rendered to juvenile offenders, considering the weight of their unlawful conducts and their special circumstances. International standards use the terms “juvenile justice” and “juvenile justice systems” to refer to the treatment of the children accused or convicted of breaches in the law, whether in justice systems specifically for children or in justice systems that deal with adults as well.
When a juvenile offender, after understanding the content of the charges brought against him, enters a plea of “guilty,” or where the Court is satisfied that his offence has satisfactorily been established, section 24 of The Laws of Sierra Leone indicates that the penalty of imprisonment does not apply if he is below 14 years of age; and to those between 14 to 17 years of age, it applies only when other methods of dealing with the offender are manifestly inadequate.
This provision in Cap 44 is flagrantly being abused in northern Sierra Leone . Juvenile offenders are often imprisoned not after having exhausted all other possibilities. Making matters worse, they are most times held in maximum prisons and police detention centres with adult convicts as there are no Remand Homes and Approved Schools for child offenders. Moreover, the Probation Officers who are charged with the responsibility of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of juvenile offenders against abuse and neglect are themselves ill motivated to follow up on such matters. One such example is in the case of a fifteen year old boy from Bat Kanu in the Leibayseigahun Chiefdom in the Bombali district who was accused of abuse of young girl aged fourteen. When the boy made his first appearance in the Magistrate Court in Makeni, the Probation Officer, who should be there to protect him, was absent in court. The presiding Magistrate had to send the boy back to the maximum prison to co-habit with adults contrary to Article 10(2)(b) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which states that children detained pending trial must be segregated from adults, except where this would not be in the best interests of the child.
In trying juvenile offenders within the limits of what Chapter 44 and any other related law permit, it is expected that the basic consideration of the courts shall be to protect, preserve, and promote the rights of the juvenile offender in relation to the offence with which he stands charged and that of his personal circumstances. This point is emphasized with lucidity in Rule 1(4) of the Beijing Rules, which states that “juvenile justice shall be conceived as an integral part of the national development process of each country, within the comprehensive framework of social justice for all juveniles.”
Rules 5/17 of The Beijing Rules state that the juvenile justice system must emphasize the well-being of the juvenile and ensure that any reaction to juvenile offenders is always in proportion to the circumstances of both the offender and the offence. Article 40(1) of the CRC posit that states should recognize the right of every child accused of a criminal offence to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child’s sense of dignity and worth, taking into account the child’s age and the desirability of promoting the child’s reintegration and assumption of a constructive role in society.
Chapter 44 of The Laws of Sierra Leone expressly states what the Juvenile Magistrate Courts can do in the exercise of jurisdiction over matters involving juvenile offenders. When a child or young person is in conflict with the law, the Act provides for such offender to be put under the care of a Probation Officer as a first step. Where this is not possible, the offender is then sent to a Remand Home, except where the offender holds himself out to be of bad behaviour during trial.
However, the absence of Approved Schools and Remand Homes has greatly affected the proper and effective administration of juvenile justice in the northern part of the country with serious consequences on the future of the children. When the Court in Makeni, after hearing juvenile cases, acts in conformity with Article 14(4) ICCPR which states that juvenile justice system should uphold the rights and safety and promote the physical and mental well-being of juveniles and take into account the desirability of rehabilitating the young person by handing over offenders to the Probation Officer, the Probation Officer, because of the lack of Remand Homes in entire region, take the children to a ‘Bail Home’ in care of one Helen Sesay at Azzolini Highway in Makeni for them to be ‘rehabilitated.’ This ‘rehabilitation’ process in that makeshift home has greatly undermined the whole process of promoting the child’s reintegration and assumption of a constructive role in society as it lacks the necessary structures like security for the children.
Consequently, since the close of last year to date, a number of children under the care of Helen Sesay, with ages 13, 14, 15 and 16 have reportedly ‘escaped’ from the home at Azzolini Highway with there whereabouts still not known. What is more frustrating is that the Probation Officer is not treating the matter vigorously. Each time he is asked by the Magistrate to give an up date on the ‘escaped boys,’ he responds by saying that they are yet to be apprehended. However, section 20(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act provides that “Any person to whose care a child is committed under this Ordinance shall, whilst the order is in force, have the like control over the child as if he were his parent, and shall be responsible for his maintenance…”
International standards set out some guiding principles relating to juvenile justice. These are found on the duty of the state to secure the best interest of each child and the corresponding duty to ensure that measures affecting children who have broken the law are proportional to the gravity of the offence and take into consideration the personal circumstance of the juvenile.
With the increase in child trafficking, these concerns definitely make room for suspicion. We must remember that these children are going to be charged with the responsibility of administering the nation tomorrow. Therefore, a primary consideration in all actions concerning them, including those undertaken by courts of law, administrative or legislative bodies must be in the best interests of the child.