Introduction
It has been noted by several war researchers that judicial inertia during the pre-war years was one of the major causes in fuelling the decade long war that engulfed Sierra Leone from 1991 to 2002. Constitutional rights such as the right to a fair trial by a competent body recognized by law as provided for in sec. 23 (1) of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone were violated with impunity. After the war, the Government together with its partners is making genuine strides to ensure that such violations are made history. However, in spite of these reforms, there is still more to be done in ensuring judicial accountability, needed now more than ever before. One such area that has continued to plague the judiciary is the lack of an interpretation unit; a necessary component in ensuring fair trial rights.
Consequently, this article seeks to examine the impact of the lack of an interpretation unit and the need to establish it if the judiciary is to live up to the expectations of the public as an institution that administers justice to all.
Practice in the National Courts
In Sierra Leone, the working language of the court is English. That is, all matters brought before the court are conducted in English. Whilst legal practitioners, Judges, Magistrates and Justices of the Peace are thoroughly equipped with the said language, on the contrary, the bulk of the litigants, particular accused persons, can hardly understand the language of the court. In the Magistrates’ Court, for example, the court clerks usually take the unavoidable task of translating from English to the dialect of the litigant vice versa testimonies of various parties brought before the court in order to have a comprehensive record of evidence. In the event wherein the clerk does not understand the language of the party testifying, the prosecution at times provides an interpreter. In cases where the prosecution cannot promptly produce one, the matter is very likely to be adjourned until one is found. The Magistrate, in rare instances to expedite the case, will ask for another witness to take the stand. By mutual consent, however, both the prosecution and defence can agree to lead evidence in the language that the parties understand better provided they are well grounded in such language. This does not however preclude the Magistrate or Judge from carrying out the daunting task of transcribing evidence adduced in court into English, the official language of the court for the records.
International Standards
Competent interpretation has been recognized by other national and international tribunals. This provisions is enshrined in some international instruments such as Art 14(3)(f) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Art 6(3)(e) of the European Convention (EC), among others. The Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) in adhering to international standards also provides for an interpretation unit consisting of national and international interpreters to interpret indigenous and international languages into the working language of the Court. This unit was established primarily to assist stenographers in producing transcripts in English and to enable the Judges to record evidence as they are adduced in court. The unit has also assisted trial Attorneys to make corrections on evidence being adduced when they were wrongly translated as they together with accused persons have the opportunity to hear the translations.
A case for Sierra Leone
The general practice in courts in Sierra Leone is that when an accused or other witnesses do not understand the language of the court, the prosecution usually gets someone to do the interpretation. In fact in some instances, they police prosecutors especially in the provinces doubles as interpreters. While they should be credited for wanting to expedite proceedings on the one hand, on the other hand, such practice violates fair trial provision as some of these interpreters would not be au fait with some legal vocabularies needed to execute the task of interpreting properly. As such, their effort can be complimented and made meaningful if there is an interpretation unit with trained and competent interpreters that the court can rely on when there is need. Suffice it to say that this right to interpretation is entrenched in the Constitution. Section 23 (5) (e) provides that an accused “shall be permitted to have without payment the assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand the language of the court”. [1] Simply put, the provision makes it obligatory for an accused to be provided an interpreter if he/she cannot understand the language of the court. Since the prosecution has the burden to prove the guilt of the accused, there is the tendency that they are likely to engage the services of such interpreters who may be sympathetic to their cause. In most cases, the defence hardly provides interpreters; as such, they appear to be moving away from their responsibility of proving the impartiality or otherwise of the interpreters provided by the prosecution. Also, in some cases, the court does not test their veracity in terms of confidentiality for the judicial process where applicable. Cases relating to sexual offences usually require close sessions or in chamber testimony, contracted interpreters in such cases if required may not necessarily posses the expertise required for confidentiality and there will be the risk of releasing what is been said during private sessions.
The right to a competent interpreter should be an integral part for the defence of an accused rather than just a privilege. The ICCPR and the EC as mentioned inter alia, provide for the right to an interpreter during criminal trial. This suggests that if an accused cannot speak or understand the language of a court, he/she should be provided with one in order to ensure the fairness of the trial. In July, this problem of interpretation arose in the case of The Inspector General of Police v Harvey Steven Perez et al in Magistrate’s Courts 1(a) presided over by Tarawallie Deen in Freetown. Most of the accused persons hardly understood the language of the court and the Prosecution had to contract an independent interpreter for the purpose of interpreting for the Court. While this has been lauded by human right activists, they are however, concerned with the impartiality of the interpreter as he is not trained for the sole purpose of court room interpretation. Also, the validity of the interpretation cannot be contested by the defence as he translates from English to Spanish and vice versa. The need for judicial interpreters should be limited only to cases of such, but particularly to all others that come before the courts on a daily basis.
The establishment of an interpretation unit would, no doubt, fast track the move towards creating a comprehensive data base for transcript and subsequent law reporting in Sierra Leone. This can be done when there are clear and concise transcripts of every trial proceeding and such documents are made available to both the prosecution and defence and the public where applicable.
Conclusion
Amidst the fact that the judiciary is moving on despite the absence of an official interpretation unit, such an inadequacy undermines the effort of Government and other organizations working on judicial reforms. Creating an interpretation unit in the national judiciary will not only compliment strides taken but will also demonstrate respect for constitutional provisions relating to fair trial rights in tandem with international standards. Establishing an official interpretation unit will lessen the unavoidable burden given to Magistrates and Judges to transcribe cases hence reduce the propensity of having backlog cases as more cases will be heard daily. The task has been made easier by the interpretation unit of the SCSL having already created a comprehensive list of accepted translated words from some of our indigenous languages which can be used in our national Courts. The expertise of these professionals can be utilized by the national judiciary instead of training new interpreters. Utilizing the services of such trained personnel will combat the struggle of finding translators or interpreters during proceedings.
It should also be noted that both prosecution and defence counsels heavily depend on notes taken during Examinations-in-Chief, Cross-Examinations, and Re-Examinations. During Cross-examination however, opposing parties usually contend with accepting certain pieces of evidence thereby giving rise to long, drawn-out debate; the problem is usually exacerbated when the Magistrate or Judge gives his/her own recorded evidence. To avoid such, there is the need for interpreters to ensure that every party records the same evidence or transcripts which are been produced by the unit. This will not only lead to accountability, but will bolster the reformed judicial process.
[1] Ibid