Children, they say, are the next generation of leaders in any nation and therefore should be treated with the utmost care, attention and protection by older members of their various communities. They are perceived as being vulnerable in many respects; they are considered inexperience to make sound decisions that would help shape their adult lives. Thus, governments the world over are duty-bound to pass legislations that would ensure that the rights of children are fully protected. In light of this legal and moral obligation, the Government of Sierra Leone in 2007 enacted the Child Rights Act; a law geared towards protecting and promoting the rights of children in all parts of the country. However, since the passing of the said Act, very little has been achieved in terms of guaranteeing that children’s rights are truly protected. The enforceability of some of the provisions of the Act has been dismal. Apparently, law enforcement officers have not been fully following the exact provisions of the Act in executing their statutory duties. The problem is more acute in the rural areas where the overwhelming majority of residents use the local court system. The continued problem cannot be divorced from the ignorance on the part of both the court officers and court users in the rural areas about some of the provisions of the Child Rights Act. Hence, this article, focusing primarily on Bo district will highlights some incidences of gross violations of children’s rights in courts. It will also make a case for a thorough sensitisation drive of the Child Rights Act, particularly targeting stakeholders in the District.
Article 70 of the Child Rights Act 2007 states that ‘‘in any judicial proceeding in Sierra Leone, a child shall not be held to be criminally responsible for his actions if he is below the age of fourteen years’’. However, series of actions relating to the treatment of children in the Bo District especially in the local courts prove otherwise. There have been systematic violations of the rights of children said to be in conflict with the law in the region under consideration almost on a daily basis. In the local courts, children below the age of ten (10), who, according to law, bear no criminal responsibility, are held criminally liable for acts done whether intentionally, recklessly, or negligently. Once a child has been accused of a criminal conduct, the age of the child in question is hardly taken into consideration in order to determine whether the alleged suspect is in fact capable to face criminal prosecution or not. Most often the court officers would hold the accused in custody at their whim and are only inclined to release on the behest of a senior court officer or local chief. This practice has become very alarming in both the city of Bo and its environs. A case in point is the arrest and subsequent trial of a boy below the age of ten by the Town Chief in the Ngelehun village Badga Chiefdom in Bo District. The boy was accused of having killed a goat belonging to one Andrew Hindowa of the same community by stoning. The Town Chief tried the boy, found him guilty as charged, and was asked to replace the goat. The Chief also asked the boy to pay the investigation cost amounting to the tune of two hundred and nineteen thousand Leones (Le 219,000 an equivalent of US$75). The accused, for obvious reasons, was unable to honour the judgment of the Town Chief. However, an uncle of his, one Solomon Hindowa, claimed responsibility to honour the Chief’s verdict by replacing the goat; but he however, refused to pay the expenses incurred during the investigation into the said matter. In his quest to recover his expenses, the complainant took the said matter to the local court No. 1 in Bo city in order for the Court to determine whether or not the uncle of the accused was liable to pay the said expenses. Bizarrely, the Court ruled that the uncle was obliged to pay the investigation expenses although it was reduced to ninety-five thousand leones (Le. 95,000 US$ 30), which the uncle did.
The ruling of the Court in the said matter is worth commenting on as it sets a bad precedent in the administration of justice in rural communities in the Bo District. Firstly, the Town Chief has no statutory mandate to determine disputed questions of law; in other words, he had no jurisdiction to have presided over such a matter; and secondly, that even if he had, it was wrong for him to have put the boy on trial since the age of the boy exonerates him from any criminal responsibility no matter how heinous. This practice of chiefs holding courts, and putting on trial of children who bear no criminal responsibility should be nipped in the bud if the rural poor and vulnerable, particularly children are to be protected in the administration of justice.
Another incidence of overt violation of a child’s right was demonstrated in the case held at the local court No. 1 in Bo city involving a man called Morie Lamin (complainant), and a fourteen year old girl. Mr. Lamin reported the defendant to the local court officers for allegedly illegally harbouring his daughter. The defendant (the fourteen year old girl) was taken into custody immediately after the report was made and two count charges were proffered against her: illegal harbouring; and inciting, to which the defendant entered a plea of not guilty on both charges. The defendant was asked to pay a sum Le.65, 000 (US$ 59) to dispute the complainant’s case and court charges or else she would be held in custody until the other day. The fourteen year old girl could not pay the said sum and true to their word, the girl was detained until the following day. She was however later released on bail and asked to report to the Court with the money in a week’s time. The week elapsed without paying the money and the girl was re-arrested and detained for days. She has been released on bail again since the courts are not in session for now owing to the death of the Paramount Chief of Kakua Chiefdom. The case would be decided in court after the internment of the paramount chief.
A very serious abuse in this case was that the Court, upon arrest and subsequent detention of the girl child, failed to inform the parents of the girl about her involvement in a matter before the Court. This practice violates Cap.44 which states that “[w]here a child or young person is charged with any offence, the court may require the attendance of his parent or guardian and may make such orders as are necessary for the purpose.” In addition, the girl was held under inhumane conditions despite the fact that she was pregnant.
The violations of children’s rights undermine the rule of law in theses communities and by extension the country at large. Majority of Sierra Leoneans, most especially in the rural areas fall under the jurisdiction of customary law, and traditional systems remain the major avenue for redress of violations of rights or law. As such, local courts authorities should be au fait with the basic guarantees and safe guards that the laws accords members of the community especially those that relate to children. Passing legislations protecting the rights of children can only have meaningful effect if the provisions are implemented accordingly. Therefore, it behoves stakeholders, particularly those involve in child rights issues to embark on a massive sensitisation drive in rural communities in an effort to popularise laws relating to children’s rights. Through this method, the rights of children would not only be in theory but most importantly, being put into practice.