In March, the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) of Sierra Leone organized a three-day national dialogue forum to pick the brains of Sierra Leoneans on how to strengthen ongoing efforts to curb corruption in the country. The conference was also aimed at reviewing the current strategies – identifying what works and what does not – as well as identifying areas and targets for reforms. The key objectives of the forum, according to a communiqué issued at the end of the conference, included:
– To recognize the benefits of a multiplicity of players in the fight against corruption.
– To assess the role and participation of civil society organizations in the fight against corruption in Sierra Leone.
– To build an alliance and act collectively with the private sector in confronting corporate corruption.
– To build state capacity, integrity and trust in the government.
For three days, government officials, journalists, representatives of political parties, members of the international community, traditional leaders and civil society activists came together to infuse fresh air of verve and perspective into the ACC’s blueprint for combating corruption in the country. The sessions were as interesting as they were sometimes sobering as ACC officials and ordinary citizens alike freely identified the challenges the anti-graft institution faces in its efforts at fostering accountability for economic and financial crimes.
The clearest message that came out of the conference was that while the ACC has made some progress in its efforts at combating corruption in the country, significant challenges persist. Some of the key recommendations proffered by participants included the need for the ACC to scale up its oversight responsibility in the award and execution of public contracts, the need for civil society to step up support in combating corruption, and the need to strengthen the judiciary in ways that would insulate it from any political/executive interference, which would ultimately restore public confidence in the system. This article seeks to underline the need to strengthen judicial integrity in Sierra Leone in ways that would not only enhance the integrity of judicial processes, but also the integrity of the personnel in the justice sector.
I recognize the tremendous efforts the judiciary is making to foster justice and accountability in Sierra Leone. Even as we recognize those efforts, it is worth reminding ourselves of the persisting challenges that confront the justice system. No one can deny that the Sierra Leone judiciary needs serious attention, which it is not getting adequately. Actually, until recently, the justice system was in such a bad state that only a handful of people considered it a useful institution of justice. In fact, it became the last resort for seeking justice. That perception may have changed, but only slightly.
Judicial integrity basically refers to all the logistics and competence needed by judges in carrying out their functions, such as attractive conditions of service, regular training programmes, qualified support staff, merit-based promotion system, among others. It is critical to keep in mind that the judiciary is the public institution that bears the responsibility to provide critical checks on other institutions, including the private sector. A strong, independent and well-resourced judicial system is critical to the success of national accountability initiatives, including anti-corruption efforts. A judiciary that lacks integrity means also that the legal and institutional mechanism established to combat corruption generally will be weakened. Consequently, there is absolute need to strengthen judicial integrity through increased accountability of judges to the people, and the development of objective ways of ridding the judicial service of personnel who show less commitment to the values of judicial integrity. Of course, all of these would help restore public trust in the justice system.
However, judicial integrity cannot be enhanced without corresponding efforts to improve judicial capacity. At the moment, Sierra Leone’s justice system faces enormous challenges, including inadequate personnel, poor conditions of service, undue delays in trials, few training opportunities for judges, less than transparent, merit-based criteria for promotion, perceived political/executive control of the judiciary, among others. All these have conspired to weaken public confidence in the justice system. It would be a miracle for the judiciary to recapture it if these issues are not addressed. For the purposes of this article, and in light of the relationship between judicial integrity and ongoing efforts at combating corruption in the country, I wish to focus on two key issues – capacity building and conditions of service for judges.
The future of anti-corruption efforts in Sierra Leone rests not only on well-functioning, preventive systems, but a judicial system, staffed with trained and motivated Judges, that is a willing partner in the crusade. While the ACC now has prosecutorial powers, it certainly needs an impartial arbiter to complement its efforts. Undoubtedly, Sierra Leone is blessed with some of the most educated and highly experienced judges you can find in the sub-region. Even so, I am sure the Judges would be the first to admit that regular training courses would do them a world of good.
Our Judges do not get many training opportunities, and they have had to rely purely on the experience of their colleagues or individual efforts to adjudicate complex legal matters. Training courses, whether organized locally or externally, would help them learn how, for instance, Judges in similar systems adjudicate complicated legal issues that may have limited jurisprudence at the national level. It would also help them learn from others who are certainly more passionate and experienced in adjudicating economic and financial crime cases, for instance. Anti-corruption trials are a relatively new phenomenon in Sierra Leone, and it is going to require some efforts, including exchange programmes and seminars for judges, before our justice system begins to match toe to toe all the demands of fostering accountability for corruption.
In addition to capacity building needs, efforts must also be made to provide very attractive conditions of service for judges. This is not just about paying competitive salaries, it also includes providing a conducive work environment, trained and qualified support staff, as well as attractive travel and entertainment allowances. Some of these recommendations might sound ridiculous, but they are not. Take a moment to think about this: Judges are barred from undertaking any business ventures, or reverting to barrister or soliciting services; they cannot take up other appointments, except at educational institutions. Even as we set such limitations on them, they are expected to uphold the highest standard of integrity. This sounds extremely contradictory, given the not-so-attractive conditions of service of our judges.
To whom much is given, they say, much is expected. Judges have a responsibility to maintain the highest standard of integrity and professionalism. To help them do so, there must be regular performance assessments. At the moment, I am not sure how often such assessments take place, if any at all. The performance of judges must be assessed – even if annually – and the outcome of such assessments should determine their promotion or otherwise. All of these would help foster judicial accountability in Sierra Leone.
My information is that there are only 16 Judges in Sierra Leone. While many lawyers meet the criteria for becoming Judges, the traction to private practice is not only irresistible, it also makes a lot of sense, professionally and financially. Judges are only human, after all. To keep turning blind eyes on their conditions of service in the hope that they will never fall prey to the temptations of corrupt elements in society is too much of a risk to take. There is an even more compelling reason to make the bench attractive: we need the best and most experienced lawyers there – rather than a type of safety net career for those who cannot cut it in private practice either because they are patently weak or lazy.
