The Austrian philosopher, Wittgenstein, once said ‘light dawns gradually over the whole’. In other words, time reveals some things that were initially difficult to comprehend.
In Sierra Leone, it is not hard to understand that the Sierra Leone Police (SLP) has an image problem in the eyes of the wider public in the way it protects life, property and prevents crime in the society. Over the years there has been a cloud or secrecy of affairs within the police force, for which most people do not believe they can say with ease and certainty that the SLP is an accountable and transparent institution. But why is this so?
Before the violent civil war in Sierra Leone, the police force was perceived as a critical factor in human rights protection. Has this changed after the war? The debate aside, perhaps one can say the same about the SLP of today, given that human rights violations remain a dire situation in the country. Unfortunately even the police force faces immense criticism from the public for its allegedly poor human rights record, especially with regard to alleged unlawful killings.
Alleged police brutality and human rights violations have been on the increase; notably the beating of one Member of Parliament in 2014, the alleged unlawful killing of individuals in Bo, Bumbuna, Kono; the shooting of a former U.S. Marine who was on vacation in Freetown, and a five-year old boy. There are allegations of corruption, too, including complaints about some police officers accepting bribes from commercial drivers and demanding money for bail.
With each reported case of police brutality, the clarion call for thorough, independent and internal investigation continues to reverberate across the walls of justice, mostly to little effect. However, the manner and quality of police internal investigations of citizen complaints are not without concern, and this to a greater extent has been responsible for the downbeat police-community relationship. The media and some civil rights groups have called out the police for failing to investigate citizens’ complaints comprehensively, fairly and timely. Many see the police as not fully supportive of efforts to foster accountability and rule of law, by ensuring that things are done in the right way, as well as punishing its personnel who act in unprofessional and corrupt manners.
Even amidst efforts made by the institution to maintain standards by correcting the wrongs and misconduct of its personnel, there is strong public cynicism as to whether the SLP can ever come clean about its own internal accountability mechanisms. But as the saying goes, time changes everything. Also, ordinary citizens can be assured that all is not lost, as the call for a transparent and an accountable police force has become louder and more robust.
Against this backdrop, the Center for Accountability and Rule of Law (CARL) has been working with the SLP to help the police to be more open to ensure public confidence in their daily operations. The SLP has opened up a window of optimism by giving CARL access to the Complaint, Discipline and Internal Investigations Department’s (CDIID’s) useful internal investigations information concerning its personnel who have acted contrary to police standards.
The table below is a summary of some of the key human rights related complaints; for the period March–October 20, 2014, of all the six regions, including those directly reported to the CDIID at PHQ.
|
No |
Outcome | CDIID PHQ | West | East | South | North | Total |
|
1 |
Dismissal |
29 |
0 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
39 |
|
2 |
Reduction in Rank |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
3 |
Restitution |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
|
4 |
Corrective Training |
152 |
41 |
18 |
17 |
29 |
257 |
|
5 |
Warning Letter |
65 |
51 |
10 |
0 |
10 |
116 |
|
6 |
Discharge for want of prosecution |
0 |
23 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
27 |
|
7 |
Hearing in Progress |
27 |
8 |
11 |
3 |
2 |
51 |
|
8 |
Awaiting Hearing |
30 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
33 |
|
9 |
Closed- No case to answer |
33 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
6 |
44 |
|
10 |
Legal Advise |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
11 |
Under Investigations |
143 |
57 |
35 |
9 |
19 |
228 |
|
12 |
Keep in View( KIV) |
25 |
6 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
41 |
|
13 |
Transfer to CID/ HQ |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
14 |
Informally resolved |
26 |
9 |
15 |
0 |
4 |
54 |
| Total number of cases | 528 | 191 | 109 | 35 | 77 | 940 |
Source- The Sierra Leone Police-Police Headquarters (PHQ), March – October 20, 2014
Summary of Report: Number of reported cases-940 /number of suspensions-72/number of dismissals-39/number of reduction in rank-0
Key findings
We will now analyse the selected offences from the reported cases between the indicted personnel and citizens.
| Offences reported |
CDIID PHQs |
West | East | South | North |
| Lack in civility |
85 |
24 |
24 |
5 |
20 |
| Corrupt/ Improper practice |
124 |
51 |
30 |
6 |
23 |
| Act/ conduct |
120 |
16 |
5 |
0 |
7 |
| Unfair treatment |
11 |
1 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
| Neglect of family responsibilities |
28 |
7 |
7 |
0 |
1 |
| Absent without leave |
35 |
17 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
| Neglect of duty |
52 |
28 |
14 |
1 |
4 |
| Unlawful discharge of firearms |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Lack of civility is a dismissible offence, which refers to unlawful detention and abuse of persons, and failure to show respect for their human rights. Thus, for the period under review, the CDIID at Police Headquarters had 85 reports from Western Area, 24 from the Eastern Region, 5 from the South, and 20 from the North.
Corrupt or improper practice is a dismissible offence, which includes taking bribes or passing information to any person on warrant or summon which has been or is about to be issued against such a person. On record, the CDIID police headquarters had 124 reports, Western Area 51 reports, 30 in the Eastern region, 6 in the South, and 23 in the North.
Act/Conduct: This is a dismissible offence and refers to any unprofessional behaviour not specified in the Police Regulations 2001, but is against common practice, e.g. stealing or unlawful killing of a person. For this offence, the CDIID at police headquarters had 120 reports, including 16 in the Western Area, Eastern region 5, none in the Southern region, and 7 in the North.
Unfair treatment: This is dismissible but depends on the nature of the issue. It is an act of bias or prejudicial treatment, wherein a person makes a report and the police officer in question fails to take action, and where such action to be taken lies in his power. The CDIID, police headquarters had 11 reports, Western Area 1 report, none in the Eastern and Northern regions, and 5 reports in the Southern region.
Neglect of family responsibilities: This is no dismissible offence, which involves male personnel who fail to provide welfare support to their spouse or children. The CDIID, police headquarters had 28 reports, Western Area and Eastern region had 7 reports each, 1 in the North and none in the South.
Neglect of duty: This relates to failure to do official duty or responsibilities under the direct control of personnel. The CDIID, police headquarters had 52 reports, Western Area 28 reports, Eastern region 14 reports, 1 report in the South and 4 in the North.
Absence without leave: This refers to absence from work without permission; and unlike other offences, a dismissal decision is taken by the human resource department of the police. The CDIID, police headquarters had 35 reports, Western Area 17, none in the East and South, and 5 in the North.
Unlawful discharge of firearms is a dismissible offence and refers to the shooting of a weapon without order. There was no reported case of this in any of the regions. It is worthy to note that this does not mean that no incident of unlawful discharge of firearms took place in the period under review. The fact that there were no reports of unlawful killings only raises the question of whether the police can avow that the discharge of firearms or actions that allegedly led to the death of some citizens between March and October 20, 2014, were lawful, or that the victims were culpable and responsible for their own death.
However, when the issue of unreported unlawful discharge of firearms was raised with the department, they responded that strategies were in place to prevent offences of this nature, and that there was no actual intelligence or report that this had occurred.
In conclusion, the CDIID should be commended for creating such a platform to promote transparency and accountability. CARL hopes this understanding and support will continue, and CARL suggests, going forward, that the CDIID state in future the categories of offence for which the suspensions, corrective training and dismissals occurred.