Sierra Leone operates a two tier justice system: the formal and informal system. The formal system deals with matters of general law whereas the informal system is mainly preoccupied with issues arising out of customary law. The formal court system which applies principles of general law is mostly practiced in the Western Area, whereas the informal court system which is largely preoccupied with administering customary law is only applicable in the provinces. The informal justice system, also known as the local court system, has limited jurisdiction to hear and determine both criminal and civil cases. It also has original jurisdiction to hear and determine all land matters in the provinces as a court of first instance. As a result of the jurisdiction of the local court, though limited to a very large extent, and other advantages ranging from cost effectiveness to quick dispensation of matters amongst others, it is widely used by the overwhelming majority of residents in the provinces as a means to settle legal disputes. However, on the low side of it, it is fraught with a number of challenges including abuse of authority which has serious implications on the workings of the machinery of justice in the provinces.
Local Courts are presided over by chairmen who are appointed by the Minister of Internal Affairs, Local Government and Rural Development on the recommendations of the Paramount Chiefs to hear and determine cases brought before them fairly, impartially and without fear or favour. Upon appointment to office, they are sworn on oath to do right to all manner of people as provided for in section 15 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone and according to the laws and customs recognized by such court without affection or ill will. However, this underlying principle for dispensing justice is not so in many local courts in the provinces. This article will seek to highlight some instances of blatant abuse of authority with a specific focus on that of the chairman of Local Court II in the Kakua Chiefdom in the Bo district and its implications on the administration of justice in the said chiefdom.
Local court Number II appears to be adjudicating on matters beyond its jurisdiction. It has been observed that principles of impartiality and professionalism are lacking during court proceedings as there are instances where the said chairman openly flaunts his support for a party in a case before him. In three different cases brought before him, the chairman exhibited bias against either the plaintiff or the defendant contrary to the expressed provisions of the Local Court Act, 1963 (as amended) which prescribes the extent and limits of their powers. This overt abuse of authority that the chairman often demonstrates has caught not only the attention of the general public but even his colleagues some of whom are assessors in the said court including the court clerk.
During the period between February and March this year, three cases were heard in Local Court II that underscores the point of abuse of authority by the chairman. The cases are: Martha Jakema v Ansumana Bangura; Ansumana Bangura v Madam Musu; and Fatmata Kaitibie v Suwu Ngumbu. The first case is about an alleged insult of the plaintiff by the defendant; the second is a case of the defendant using concrete blocks belonging to the plaintiff without the latter’s consent; and the third is an alleged innuendo of the plaintiff having an extra-marital affair. During the said hearings of the first and second cases, the chairman demonstrated consistent bias particularly during cross-examination against Ansumana Bangura who happened to be the defendant and plaintiff in the first and second case respectively. The chairman was unethical and unprofessional in the way and manner he directed his questions at Ansumana Bangura as most of the questions posed were not relevant to the instant cases. Even the witness of Ansumana Bangura was not spared by the unhealthy tactics of the chairman. His questioning of the witness was more or less to implicate her rather than her evidence helping the court to administer justice impartially. For instance, the witness was asked if she knew the number of blocks the defendant used to construct her fence; or had the plaintiff ever reported the defendant to an area chief in respect of the former’s broken blocks; or were these blocks now with the plaintiff before reporting the defendant?
If these questions were not intended to have the witness commit perjury, and thereby discrediting her evidence, how would she know the amount of blocks used by the defendant; or why ask a witness if the plaintiff had earlier reported his case to an area chief? In fact, besides the method of questioning of Ansumana Bangura and his witness, the chairman’s conduct in open court during the hearings were worrying to say the least. His body language, gesticulations and movements in court were circumspect of bias in favour of Martha Jakema and Madam Musu, both daughter and mother respectively. Instances abound were Martha Jakema, in company of a male relation were severally seen surreptitiously entering into the office of the chairman after court hearings. What they did in the office when the matter was sub judice can be anybody’s guess.
In the third instance, that is, in the case between Fatmata Kaitibie v Suwu Ngumbu bordering on an alleged innuendo of the plaintiff having an extra-marital affair, the chairman did not disappoint again in abusing his authority to the chagrin of even the court assessors. The evidence adduced during the hearing showed persistent corroboration in underscoring the fact that the defendant did make the innuendo repeatedly. At the end of the hearing, three of the five assessors jointly came up with a guilty verdict against defendant, Suwie Ngumbu. However, in total disbelief, the chairman dissented; and drew from his pocket a handwritten judgment of the said case which he read to the court. But there was something suspicious about the chairman’s handwritten judgment. The handwriting was very similar to an excuse letter written earlier by the defendant to the court. By that action, the chairman usurped the lawful duty of the clerk of the court to register all orders and judgments of the court as stated in section 8(1) of the Local Court Act, 1963 (as amended). The undue influence of the chairman has greatly disturbed particularly the three assessors including the court clerk who have vowed to report this displeasing attitude of his to the customary law officer, Monfred Sesay.
The chairman’s actions in all three cases under consideration are in contravention of section 42(1)(b) of the Local Court Act, 1963 (as amended) which provides that any member or officer of any local court who corruptly favours or disfavours any person shall be guilty of an offence. In fact subsection (3) of same specifies the appropriate punishment of either a fine or imprisonment or both for those who are found wanting. As an alternative, section 5 of same provides that the local government minister or any person or body authorized by him may dismiss or suspend any member of a local court who shall appear to have abused his authority. What is unfortunate though is that most of the local court users have little knowledge about these legal provisions that would equip them to fight cases of injustice.
Concluding therefore, it is important to note that such outright abuse of authority is a threat to justice in the informal court system. It undermines the confidence reposed in it by especially the poor, marginalized and vulnerable people who are in the majority. The actions of the said chairman need to be nipped in the bud before it becomes unbearable. As such, it is but fitting that a judicial committee is set up to be looking into cases of such nature and where necessary, punitive measures such as fines, suspensions, and or dismissals are instituted against those who act contrary to the provisions of the Local Court Act, 1963 (as amended). Such a mechanism will help greatly curb abuse of authority with impunity thereby consolidating the rule of law in local courts.