Some officials of the Local Court No.2 in Bo have not stopped amusing court users and independent monitors with their endless quarrel over money. In spite of two previous articles published by The Monitor regarding their insatiable desire to enrich themselves through fraudulent means, their financial antics do not seem to have gone away. Recently, a quarrel ensued between the Court Chairman and his clerk over an alleged misappropriation of court funds, leaving court users, observers and other court officials shell-shocked at the degree of unethical practices by officials who should otherwise be standard bearers. Allegations of court officials embezzling fines received on behalf of the court or a litigant abounds. Currently, there are ceaseless allegations of how the former Court Clerk embezzled funds collected on behalf of litigants. While these allegations are yet to be investigated, the current Court Clerk and the Chairman have demonstrated clearly that they cannot act as safe custodians of court funds. Their alleged acts may have somewhat impugned their reputation, and by extension, public confidence in the verdicts reached by them. It is about time that the Local Government Ministry started paying keen attention to some of these anomalies.
This piece seeks to highlight some of the laws that these officials may have breached – as well as the implications of their actions for the credibility of the court and the justice system in general.
Section 42 (2) of the Sierra Leone Local Court Act 1963 states that “Whosoever accepts or obtains for himself or for any other person — by any corrupt or illegal means or by corrupt personal influence – to do or forbear to do any act which the said member [or] officer — is authorized to do in exercise of his —functions — shall be guilty of an offence”. And section 42 (3) prescribes the punishment for such an offence – a fine not exceeding £100 or to an imprisonment to a term not exceeding 12 months or to both such fine and — imprisonment”.
Section 8 confers financial responsibilities on the Court Clerk, which include keeping an account of all monies paid or received by the court. The Court Chairman, with assistance from at least ¾ of the panel of assessors, hears and adjudicates cases that are related to the customs of a particular locality/chiefdom. The chairman has no financial responsibilities. Plain and simple!
It is curious that in a recent civil case between Fanta Dabor (Plantiff) and Hawa Chernor (Defendant), the Chairman of the Local Court No. 2 in Bo is alleged to have received a summons fee of Le20,000 (approximately $4) from the complainant which he allegedly failed to hand over to the Court Clerk. This led to a confrontation between the two officials for at least ten minutes in the full glare of the public.
Cost awards are meant to compensate victorious litigants for the expenses they incurred prosecuting or defending a legal dispute. When cost awards are ordered by a Court, it is important that the orders are fully executed. Otherwise, the court’s role as a dispute resolution body may be grossly undermined, and this could encourage people to take the law into their own hands. It is even worse when Court officers receive fines on behalf of a victorious litigant and refuse to hand them over to them, as is often the case at the Local Court No. 2 in Bo. It is simply reprehensible!
It is also critical that court officials demonstrate honesty and discipline even in their private lives as it helps reinforce public confidence in the actions/decisions taken in their official capacity. This has largely not been the case for the Chairman of the Local Court No.2 in Bo. Apparently, the chairman is also an agent of the Bo Traders’ Union, a position which allows him to negotiate loans on behalf of the traders. Every trader who wishes to obtain loan from the bank must pay a registration fee to the Chairman, which he ostensibly uses to process application documents. A separate quarrel recently ensued between the Chairman and a female trader, Princess Saffa, who claims to have paid Le75,000 (approximately $15) to him as partial registration fee for a bank loan. Even though the Chairman has conceded to receiving the money, efforts to get him initiate the process by the lady have so far proved futile. Realizing that the Chairman’s delay in processing her application documents posed a serious risk to her chances of getting the loan, she confronted him in open court asking for either a refund of her money or the completed registration form. The confrontation did not only interrupt proceedings on the day, it also constituted a breach of court decorum.
As Sierra Leone continues to make strong efforts at rebuilding its justice system, it is critical that some of these anomalies are addressed by the authorities concerned. The alleged misconducts of these officers could leave an indelible, negative impression about their competence and personality. This may invariably contribute to a general lack of confidence in the justice system, which could pose a threat to peace and stability in the country.
It is recommended, among others, that a Judicial Disciplinary Unit (JDU) be established to investigate and prosecute complaints of official misconduct by court officials. The JDU should be decentralized in order to effectively address complaints of misconduct arising from local courts across the country.
