by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
During the 2012 presidential and parliamentary general election, the President Dr Ernest Bai Koroma’s manifesto proposed to make efforts on mainstreaming gender equality through institution and capacity building programmes and the provision of incentive where necessary in closing the gender gap and increasing women’s public participation in the country. He reaffirmed his commitment to gender justice issues when, during the International Women’s Day Commemoration at the Miatta Conference Hall on the 8th of March 2013, the President declared the day as a public holiday; stating that ‘violence against a woman is violence against the state’. Indeed, the President has made gender mainstreaming a stand-alone pillar in his strategic document The Agenda for Prosperity.
The government of Sierra Leone has indeed shown great commitment toward gender issues by passing three significant Acts: the Gender Act, the Child Right Act and the Sexual Offences Act. However, there remains a lot to do, especially when it comes to the allocation of finances to the Ministry of Social Welfare, Gender and Children’s Affairs, the Ministry which have the responsibility of ensuring the provision of services to the socially marginalized, disadvantaged or less privileged. Their focus is particularly on children, whether in homes or on the street; those affected by the war or in conflict with the law; as well as women, the aged, and the physically disabled (as groups, individual or family units). Essentially, they are responsible for all who need welfare attention in our communities.
If we are to look at the budget distribution for 2012, the government of Sierra Leone allocated a total grant of Le 7,902,300,000 to the various institutions working on gender issues. Out of this, the amount transferred to Freetown City Council for issues regarding social welfare, gender and children’s affairs was Le 480,000,000. The Ministry of Social Welfare, Gender and Children’s Affairs allocated Le 1, 337,700,000 for salary and wages; Le 633,000,000 for the development budget and Le 5,451,600,000 for the non-salary and non-income budget. The four latter figures, when added, make up the total grant of Le 7,902,300,000. When this figure is divided by the 2012 National Budget of Le 1,638,710,000,000 and multiplied by 100%, it gives 0.48% as the proportion of the National Budget that was allocated to these institutions for 2012.
For 2013, the government grant that has been allocated to Ministry of Social Welfare, Gender and Children’s Affairs is Le 8,383,400,000,000. Out of this, the amount transferred to Freetown City Council is Le 554,400,000; while the Ministry has allocated Le 1,630,000,000 to salary and wages and Le 779,000,000 to their development budget. When these three latter figures are combined, they total the overall grant of Le 8,383,400,000,000 allocated above. When this is divided by the 2013 National Budget of Le 1,866,214,000,000 and subsequently multiplied by 100%, it gives a figure of 0.44% as the proportion of the National Budget that has been allocated to the Ministry of Social Welfare, Gender and Children’s Affairs for this year.
In actual terms, the money allocated to the Ministry of Social Welfare Gender and Children’s Affairs has increased from Le 7,902,300,000 in 2012 to Le 8,383,400,000,000 in 2013. However, it is interesting to observe that the percentage share of the budget allocated to the Ministry has actually been reduced by 0.04%; dropping from 0.48% in 2012 to 0.44% in 2013. This percentage is insufficient when we take into cognizance the challenges facing the Ministry and other institutions such as the Family Support Unit working on Gender and Juvenile Justice Issues, who are presently in dire need of establishing more family support units in the country (they have a mere 44 family support units and 49 social workers nationwide at present).
More attention must also be placed on addressing the issue of Gender Based Violence, particularly on remedying the shortage of safe homes in the country for victims, as there is presently only one such establishment in the country (situated in Makeni). In its National Action Plan, the Ministry highlighted its overall goal to combat Gender Based Violence through a holistic and strategic approach. This comprises: the building of a strong cooperative network amongst institutions and relevant sectors working on gender based violence related issues; enacting and enforcing laws against gender based violence; creating a massive public awareness program; and the provision of preventative, curative and rehabilitative measures, which to some extent are being achieved. However, we think there remains much to do, especially in the area of public awareness, as we rightly heard the Director of the Ministry of Children’s Affairs informing the public that around 100 cases of rape had been reported just for the month of May. Of course, embarking in such a venture entails money in order for it to achieve its goals.
There is also a need for the provision of preventative, curative and rehabilitative measures, as the only organization providing curative measure for survivors are the Rainbo Centers, Ministry of Social Welfare, Gender and Children’s Affairs and Health Poverty Action. The Rainbo Centers and Health Poverty Action are limited to some areas of the country while the Ministry is present in district headquarter towns, but not in all parts of the country.
Another pressing need of the Ministry is the handling of the remand home and approved school which are in need of equipment and learning materials for the rehabilitation of offenders, a vehicle for taking offenders to court for trials, as well as other social development programs.
As an organization seeking the welfare of, and advocating for, women and children, we are asking that the government increase the budget allocated to the Ministry of Social Welfare Gender and Children’s Affairs in order to address the issues highlighted above, if they are truly ready to empower women and children in the country.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
The traditions of various ethnic groups in Sierra Leone expect local chiefs to settle certain disputes at the community (village) level. Complaints relating to insults are among the most common that come before the chiefs and the Local Courts. Women seem to be highest offenders. In the Mende tradition, insults break regulations for personal integrity, respect for one another and harmonious co- existence, for which offenders are liable to pay fines. Usually, when such cases are reported and the allegations challenged by the defendant before the chiefs and the local courts, both the plaintiff and the defendant are ordered to pay upfront an amount of money before the matter can be heard. Both the chiefs and local courts say the money will be used to pay fines due the victorious party. This clearly constitutes an abuse of process, and a serious infringement of the rights of both defendants and plaintiffs. It certainly places a burden on all the parties, and sometimes inhibits a person who feels genuinely offended from coming before the courts or chiefs to file complaints.
This article will discuss the laws governing the rights of parties and how they are being negated at two distinct levels of the local justice system. It will also analyse the implications for the litigants and the image of the Local Court system. It will also make recommendations to forestall the odd practices and make way for improvements.
Sierra Leone is a signatory to (and has ratified some of) the agreements and conventions that are applicable in the anomalies raised in this article. These include Article 14 (2) of the International Covenant on the Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 7 (1) (6) of the African Charter, all of which speak of the right to presumption of innocence of an accused or defendant. Specifically, they enumerate that a fundamental principle of the right to fair trial is the right of every person to be presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty after a fair trial. This right applies not only to treatment in court and the evaluation of evidence, but also to treatment before trial and goes on until the final judgement and appeal. This right requires that chiefs, chairmen and panel members refrain from pre-judgement of the case, and that authorities do not make statements implicating a case party, or about the guilt or innocence of a defendant before the outcome of the trial.
Article 14 (7) of the ICCPR states that no one may be tried or punished again in the same jurisdiction for an offence for which he or she has been tried or punished (fined) before.
Cases of insult emanating from local communities that come before either local courts or the chiefs often attract a series of fines that are for the most part exploitative, to say the least. When a defendant admits guilt for an allegation of insult in a chiefs ‘barry’, he or she pays a case withdrawal fee (equal to the summons fee), a compensation to the plaintiff, as well as a fine for a breach of community law. The two former payments go to the plaintiff and the latter to the chief. The three categories often vary depending on the preference of the individual chief. Where the allegation is challenged by the defendant, some chiefs impose parallel fines usually between Le 20,000 – Le 30,000 (approximate $7) on the rival parties, and then advise the aggrieved party to take his/her case to a Local Court with a fresh summons fee of Le 30,000 (approximately $7). During hearing, if the statements of the plaintiff and his witnesses corroborate, the court’s panel imposes parallel fines on the plaintiff and the defendant usually of between Le 50,000 – Le 100,000 (or more), contingent upon the immorality used in the insult(s). This fine is in fulfilment of the Mende traditional belief that ‘an offence is committed only when the circumstance involves more than one individual.’ This legitimizes the imposition of the fine even on the aggrieved party. It is intended that this fine shall be heaped on the losing side at judgment.
Central to our concern are the issues relating to multiple fine payments by the plaintiff and the defendant for reported cases of insult(s), with the associated abuses that accompany them. Social and legal fines are intended as punishments for wrongs done to others in society, and in other cases are imposed on individuals found guilty in disputes to deter them from repeating the act. If this is the case, we may then ask why our chiefs and the Local Courts impose them on case parties even before proper proceedings start? Obviously, the imposition of fines on the litigants during hearing is an implied presumption of the guilt of both sides and has nothing to do with any traditional dictate. Besides, it adds insult to injury to impose such a fine on an already aggrieved person seeking redress in a court of law. This overtly abuses their right of presumption of innocence as they have been punished unjustifiably. Then there is the aspect of double punishment. The fees imposed before the start of proceedings, as well as after the judgment and probably are all additional violations. As civil matters have the purpose of providing compensation for the wrong(s) done to the aggrieved party, in the circumstances described above the Local Courts have added colours of exploitation, part of which profits the presiding panel members’ pockets.
The multiple fees ordered by the courts increases the expenses incurred by the guilty party, who may have also incurred expenses of the victorious party during the proceedings. Usually, it runs to such high sums that most losers find it difficult to pay even when divided into the usual two or three instalments of payments. This often leads to difficulty for the victorious party receiving the fines imposed and the delay by the courts in enforcing the judgments. This also has the unfortunate effect of creating a poor reputation for the Local Courts and its administration of justice – a replica of the pre-civil war situation in this country.
In light of the above, CARL wishes to proffer these recommendations as remedies to improve on the traditional and local administrative set up regarding the adjudication of insult cases.
– A unified cost of summons fees at all courts of community and section chiefs along with minimal fines for cases of insults.
– The abolition of pre-judgement parallel fines that violate citizens’ right to fair trial, while at the same time lowering the financial burden on parties.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
The trial of the case of The State V. Momoh Kemoh Konteh, one of the most publicized corruption-related cases in contemporary times in Sierra Leone, has at last come to an end. The accused was indicted on five counts and stood trial before Justice A. H. Charm of the High Court No. 2 Freetown. Count 1 was soliciting an advantage, contrary to section 35(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act 2008; Count 2, peddling influence, contrary to section 31(3) of the same Act; Count 3, soliciting an advantage contrary to section 35(1) of the Act; and Count 4 and 5, conspiracy contrary to section 128 of the Act. The accused, defended by two seasoned legal practitioners, Hon. Manley-Spaine, technically assisted by C.F Edwards, was discharged and acquitted on all charges.
The judgment invited mixed reactions from the public, civil society organizations, the media and the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC). Lead defence Counsel N.E Manley-Spaine said that he was not taken by surprise as, during his final submission, he had stated that the prosecution had failed woefully to prove the guilt of the accused, as was on the face of the indictment. The indictment had specific sums of monies which were allegedly solicited (US$50,000 in count 1 and US$100,000 in count 3). Since the prosecution failed to discharge the burden in proving this with respect to the accused, there remains some doubt and it is a principle of law that all doubts work in favour of the accused. The ACC boss Joseph Kamara convened a press conference after the judgment was delivered during which he stated inter alia that his “confidence in the judicial system of Sierra Leone is shaken”, advocating for a specialized division of the High Court to be created to handle only corruption related cases. The trial generated much controversy from all walks of life in which conspiracy theories tended to overwhelm logical reasoning. The lead prosecutor and director of prosecution for the ACC, Reginald Fynn, disclosed his disappointment by stating, “I am lost as to which ‘independent evidence’ could have been stronger than the documentary and international witnesses”. In a further interview with R. S. Fynn Esq. by CARL’s Court Monitors, he said that they will likely not appeal the judgment as it was founded on facts as opposed to law and appeals can only be grounded on the latter. CARL-SL now makes an objective scrutiny and appraisal of the judgment.
The Anti-Corruption Commission, in its bid to prove the guilt of the accused, called five witnesses, one of which (PW4) was only tendered. The rest of the witnesses listed on the back of the indictment were dispensed with. Judgement has been finally delivered by the presiding justice and has been received with mixed feelings from members of the public. The vast majority of the public, CARL-SL, other civil society organisations and the Anti-Corruption Commission are wondering why or how the court cleared the accused of all five counts, given the evidence that was led before the courts. There are doubts as to how the accused escaped culpability for conspiracy and peddling influence, at least. The Justice of the Superior Court of Judicature however, in part held that the absence of “independent evidence” led to the failure of the prosecution’s case for some of the charges and therefore accordingly acquitted and discharged the accused.
Evidence was led to the effect that a key prosecution witness, PW5, called the accused person whilst in Ghana and told him of their desire to establish a company in Sierra Leone that would trade in timber and that they were coming to Sierra Leone in order for the accused to help them with the necessary political connections in registering the company. From the onset, the accused person knew that there was a blanket ban on timber logging for environmental protection purposes. The accused, however, assured the investors that he would help them meet with the Vice President of the Republic of Sierra Leone and the Director of Forestry so that they could register the company and engage in the said illegal trade. There is independent evidence that they had a total of seven secret meetings in different places, including one in the office of the accused person and another in the office of the Vice President. A reasonable man will be left believing that all these meetings were geared towards putting the necessary measures in place to connect them with the right people in society.
Secondly, there was clear evidence that the accused person introduced Alex Mansaray to the investors, and was then charged with the responsibility of knocking at the doors that mattered. This, the prosecution believed, showed that the accused person and Alex Mansaray were acting in furtherance of a common design. The two did not actually demand an advantage, but the prosecution tried to establish that there was an indication of willingness to receive one as it was exemplified in the phone conversation between Anas and Alex Mansaray in which the co-accused person, who is at large, stated the reward that should be given to people who assisted them in registering the company. The prosecution also led evidence to the effect that the accused requested the sum of US$2000 from Anas (PW5) and the said amount was given to him as part payment for the registration and “clearing of the way” for the establishment of the said company. This money was to be given to the Honourable Vice President so that they could with ease establish the company, even though there was a ban on the trade. There is also independent evidence that the accused was hired by the investors to prepare and register the said company.
CARL-SL would seek further advice as to whether an “independent corroboration” is required where the defence fails or doesn’t attempt to rebut, impugn or discredit the prosecution’s witness or evidence. While the burden of proof is on the prosecution, that burden, we argue, doesn’t include the “invention” of an independent witness to corroborate evidence where the defence has either failed to rebut or has made no attempt in doing so. The learned Judge’s ratio on the question of whether Alex Mansaray and the accused were acting in furtherance of the common design for the solicitation of money and influence peddling seems to have been based on the “absence of an independent witness”, and that certainly requires further probing. This is because it is clear from the evidence of Annas (PW5) that the US$2,000 was given to the accused (Momoh Conteh) being part payment of the US$10,000 was not only for the registration of the company, but also to “clear the way”. Furthermore, in transcripts ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ played in court, the accused is quoted to have told Bilal and PW5 to take care of the Director of Forestry in order for him to give them support, what seems to be unchallengeable primary evidence that was played in court.
Finally, statutes or legislation are drafted by parliament. Despite the great care taken to ensure that statutes are clear and exact, it is certain that as time goes by legal actions will arise on points of doubt and the court will be called upon to interpret the meaning and to give judgement. According to Professor John Willis in his influential article ‘Statutory Interpretation in a Nutshell’ (1938) suggested that “a court invokes whichever of the rules produces a result that satisfies its sense of justice before it. Although the literal rule is the one most frequently referred to in express terms, the courts treat all three as valid and refer to them as occasion demands, but naturally enough do not assign any reason for choosing one rather than the other”. It is very clear that the judge applied the literal rule of statutory interpretation. The court should, in the interest of justice, take a broader look as to the intention of parliament. If we continue to look at soliciting and peddling in this manner as defined by the judge then the net will be let loose for corrupt officials to easily escape. A more objective approach needs to be taken. Despite the overwhelming evidence presented in court by the prosecution the presiding Justice stated in his judgement that there is no independent evidence before him to find the accused culpable on any of the charges.
We at CARL also think that the judge considered the issue of ‘agent provocateur’, which the Black Law dictionary defines thus: “an agent provocateur is a person who entraps another, or entices another to break the law, and then informs against the other as a lawbreaker”. This is because, following the facts of the case, this is exactly what happened. Although it was the state that brought the matter to court, it was the ‘would-be investors’ who entrapped the accused, as they were fully aware that timber exploitation was banned. In essence, the accused were incited by the al-Jazeera journalists in their film-making mission to expose corruption in the country.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
On June 12, Freetown City Council published its first quarterly Statement of Account for 2013. The report was read out at a community outreach meeting in Freetown well before it was published on the council’s notice board. According to the minutes of this meeting, it was the ’first time’ in the council’s history to have His Worship the Mayor read the council’s Statement of Account in a public meeting.
The sources from which revenues were collected in these three months include: own source revenue, local tax, property rate, market dues, licenses fees and property income not excluding fees and other charges. From all these sources, a total of Le 3.6 billion (approximately $805,000) was collected in revenue. However, the council maintained that this figure fell below their estimated target. It is commendable that the council is now taking steps to foster a transparent and accountable leadership, even if there is a lot of room for improvement.
In February 2013, CARL and its partners commenced the implementation of a $125,000 OSIWA-funded project titled, “Local Government Accountability and Citizens’ Participation” in six districts across the country. The project seeks to promote accountability in Local Councils and to bring citizens closer to governance by encouraging them participate in the governance of their localities/communities.
Our partners include Movement for Restoration and Rural Democracy (MORRD) in the East, Human Empowerment and Development Foundation (HEMDEF) in the South, and the Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (CDHR) in the North. CARL is implementing the project in the Western Area, where we have built very strong partnership with the Freetown City Council (FCC) and the Western Rural District Council (WRDC). These partnerships, particularly with the FCC, have proven to be useful. Recently, CARL arranged consultative meetings with councillors and other stakeholders to chart a way forward in terms of addressing the council’s perennial problems. We have also collaborated in radio discussion programmes and held joint community outreach meetings. As well as the progress we are making in Freetown and the Western area, our partners in the other districts are also moving forward. In Kenema, for example, our partners have forged such strong relationships with the local council that they have routinely been invited to council meetings in an attempt to have their input.
In spite of the slight improvements observed in Freetown and other districts, there remain some challenges that the councils must overcome to become a complete success story. One such challenge is the erecting of notice boards in wards to enhance transparency and accountability through the display of basic information. There is also the problem of little or no financial support for Ward Committee members, as shown by the amount of funds allocated to the councils in the 2013 citizens’ budget.
Also in Kenema district, as a result of our advocacy, the council has asked for funding from International Food and Agricultural Development (IFAD) who have agreed to locate offices for councilors in all wards which come with notice boards, thereby fulfilling the aspirations of this project.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
In order to prevent the implementation gap that seems to have afflicted many new laws in Sierra Leone, government and civil society organizations have been working together to ensure that the legal aid law is effectively implemented. The law, passed in May 2013 as part of efforts to enhance access to justice for particularly indigent persons in Sierra Leone, requires massive financial and moral support from government, development partners and civil society groups across the country. More importantly, there is need for a coordinated approach to implementation. To this end, the Justice Sector Coordinating Office (JSCO), a unit within the Office of the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, has worked over the last year with local and international organizations to do the ground work for the Legal Aid Board and its secretariat.
This article looks at some of the activities completed by the coordinating unit and its partners, as well as the remaining tasks that need to be done.
A critical step towards implementing the law requires the setting up of the Legal Aid Board, a supervisory structure which has wide ranging functions including the administration, coordination and monitoring the provision of legal aid in civil and criminal matters. The Board comprises ten members drawn from government agencies, the judiciary, civil society organizations and academic institutions, among others. With support from civil society and other partners, the JSCO has now obtained nominations from all the relevant institutions that should constitute the Board. This is a critical milestone in the implementation schedule of the law. The nominees are expected to be sworn in by the president before they start work in earnest.
Additionally, the JSCO has successfully partnered with a six-member working group of local and international organizations to undertake a mapping survey of all organizations involved with the provision of legal aid services; including legal advice, assistance, education and paralegal services. The report has been produced and will be shared with the Legal Aid Board. It will provide a useful tool for the Board in terms of forging partnerships and designing its intervention strategy.
In partnership with civil society, the JSCO has hired the services of a consultant to develop a communications strategy for the Legal Aid Board. The idea is to ensure that a common message is used by all concerned in communicating the legal aid law. It also seeks to advise the Board on matters regarding the media institutions that exist around the country, and the ones that could be useful in the work of the Board. The communication strategy is useful not only to the Board, but also to other partners involved in the implementation of the legal aid law.
These efforts are aimed at ensuring that the board hits the ground running, however, a number of issues remain to be addressed. Among others, the Sierra Leone government needs to allocate funding to the board. There have been assurances from the government that funding will be available when the Board is set up but no one has a clear idea of the amount of funding that the new board will need, although it is obvious that a significant amount of funding will be required in the beginning. Among other things, there is need for a building to host the secretariat. Once a building is available, it will need to be furnished with office equipment and supplies. A recruitment process would also need to be launched, contracts signed with service providers and partnerships struck. Once the secretariat is up and running, the core staff in collaboration with the Board will have the task of developing an implementation and financing strategy. While we expect the government to initially fund the bulk of the Board’s activities, it will also be important for the Board to think of some creative fundraising strategies. The contributions of Sierra Leone’s development partners would be helpful, as will the pro bono support of lawyers and other civil society organizations across the country.
It is important to recognize the progress that has been made, but there’s no doubt that a lot more needs to be done before indigent Sierra Leoneans can begin to receive the services of the Legal Aid Board. Here’s hoping that the services are made available sooner rather than later.
