by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
Nearly two years after the Sierra Leone Parliament promulgated the Local Courts Act, senior officials of the Sierra Leone Judiciary traveled to the provinces in the week of March 17 to formally launch the ‘new’ local court system. The Local Courts Act 2011 effectively ended nearly five decades of political oversight of local courts. The transfer of oversight functions of local courts from the Ministry of Local Government to the office of the Chief Justice is arguably the most important provision of the new law. This transfer means that local courts are no longer under the supervision of the Ministry of Local Government but rather under the judiciary, an arm of government responsible for the administration of justice. Equally important, the law unifies the justice system by ending decades of legal dualism in Sierra Leone, where a distinction was made between formal and the so-called informal justice systems. Although the local court system is now part of the judiciary, it is still required to apply customary law in the adjudication of cases.
The transfer of oversight functions over the local courts from the Ministry of Local Government to the Office of the Chief Justice is arguably the most important provision of the new law, but it also makes other significant provisions. It provides for the establishment of Local Court Service Committee, which advises on issues relating to appointment, promotion, transfer, suspension and dismissal of local court officers. The Act also revised the jurisdiction of local courts to bring their mandate and sentencing guidelines in line with the needs of the communities, capacity of local court personnel, and most importantly, the ends of justice. Deepening democracy, rule of law and accountability system in the country would depend on an effective justice service delivery mechanism.
At the launch programme in Bo, Southern Sierra Leone which was attended by many state principals, Chief Justice Umu Hawa Tejan-Jalloh could not have put it better when she said the bed rock of all democratic societies is peace and justice, which is critical to ensuring stability and prosperity. The local courts will continue to be an important part of the national justice system. In addition to the large number of citizens who need its services, local courts are obviously more accessible at chiefdom level; they are cheap, and their procedures quicker and clearer. Furthermore, their jurisdiction to hear land, customary marriage, succession and family disputes which occur with more frequency in rural localities than other types of cases sets them apart.
Strengthening the relevance of the local courts would require effective implementation of the full range of the Local Courts Act. The challenges that confront the implementation process were not lost on the Chief Justice when she addressed the gathering in Bo. She said there are over 300 local courts that need improvements in order to bring them in line with international standards. Once those improvements are completed, she said, the various customary laws may be codified and passed on in more concrete forms to future generations. That would be a huge achievement, without doubt, but for now, the judiciary will need to address the immediate challenges facing the local courts. Among those challenges include effective implementation of the key provisions of the new law. For instance, there is need to step up efforts at reconstituting the courts based on the criteria set out in the new law as most of the current court chairmen were appointed under the old law. The offices of the State Counsel and Customary Law Officer were merged some years ago and would be advisable, in the interest of justice, to dissolve the merger so that the Law Officers Department would be kept separate customary law, which is now part of the judiciary. Also, while the National Revenue Authority (NRA) has started collecting funds generated by local courts through fines, the courts still face a serious funding gap. To foster effective administration of justice at all levels, adequate financial support should be provided to institutions of justice for logistics and other services. During a monitoring tour to the Southern Province in 2012 by the Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law, it was discovered that some Local Court chairmen had gone for nearly eight months without salaries. The conditions of service were extremely poor (and have not changed at all), thus creating a distasteful appetite for malpractices by court officials. Some of the officials were frank enough to have admitted that money which should have otherwise been handed over to the NRA are sometimes used for personal purposes because salaries are not only low but are paid irregularly. It was also observed that courtroom facilities were poor, while staff morale was exceedingly low. The capacity of court personnel is another huge challenge that needs to be addressed. Obviously, the most important criteria for court personnel, particularly the chairmen and their panel of assessors is to be knowledgeable in the customs of the chiefdom and be able to speak the predominant local language in the area. Even so, there is massive need for training in the law from which the court draws its mandate. Many court officials interviewed had only a vague idea the Local Courts Act 2011, much less the court’s jurisdictional limits. This obviously affects their ability and the integrity of the process.
It was perhaps heartening to have heard the Chief Justice mentioning the appointment of a seven-member ‘Implementation Committee’, including Paramount Chiefs and officials from the justice sector, charged with the responsibility of leading efforts for the implementation the Act or setting up the structures stipulated in the law. It is recommended that the Committee fully assess the critical aspects relating to the smooth functioning of the local courts and proffer recommendations with the view to overcoming any challenges associated with them.
The launch of the new local court system certainly represents an important step forward in implementing the new Act, even if came later than most people had expected. Going forward, the Implementation Committee will need to move quickly on issues relating to the appointment of Court Chairmen along the guidelines in the new law, proffer meaningful recommendations relating to conditions of service, capacity building programmes, and improving court facilities. Some of the challenges cannot be addressed right now, CARL expects genuine and strong efforts for solution every day.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
The Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law (CARL) today hailed the recent indictment of 7 medical practitioners and 22 others for various corruption-related offences, following the release of audited financial statements by Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI Alliance) and the Audit Service Commission of Sierra Leone. CARL considers the indictments by the Anti-Corruption Commission as a further indication of the country’s commitment to combating corruption, which is still rampant in the country.
CARL is, however, concerned about the uneven nature of the bail conditions imposed on the accused persons by two separate judges of the High Court. Specifically, in the matter of the State v. Dr. Mathew Micheal Amara who is charged with 27 counts of conflict of interest and misappropriation of donor funds, the judge imposed a number of bail conditions, including a cash deposit of Le50 million Leones (approximately USD11,000) and 2 sureties who must be owners of property, among others. The accused was unable to meet the bail conditions immediately, and was therefore held in detention for two days. In similar corruption-related cases concerning Dr. Kizito Daoh, Dr. Francis Smart et al, however, the bail conditions imposed by a different Judge did not include a cash deposit.
This appears to be the first time that an accused has been asked to purchase bail in clear variance to the commonly held belief that bail is free. This has implications for fair hearing rights of accused persons and is a cause for concern:
First, the accused’s right to prepare a good defence may have been adversely affected not only by his continued detention, but his ability to raise the required funds to pay for legal representation may have been undermined. Also, this decision seems to be in variance in a cardinal principle of English Law – the presumption of innocence. It seems that the accused has been punished by withholding his liberty even before the trial starts.
Section 79 of the CPA 1965 which deals with the issue of bail does not expressly provide for the purchase of bail by the accused. It provides for the procurement of sureties. The bail policy which may have been relied upon is of questionable legal status and purports to import a practice from the UK which the CPA does not provide for and which is alien to our jurisdiction. Besides, the UK practice is expressly backed by statute and is imposed in specific circumstances. The judiciary runs the risk of being accused of usurping the powers of parliament, which could have serious implications for the integrity of the judicial process.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
We always hear about the rights of democracy, but the major responsibility of it is participation”. Wynton Marsalis
Sierra Leoneans turned out in large numbers across the country’s 14 electoral districts last November to elect their President, parliamentarians, councillors, and mayors. The elections were generally peaceful, in part because there was little doubt that the country’s economic and development aspirations could be bolstered by credible, transparent and non-violent elections. The results showed, in many respects, that Sierra Leoneans wanted meaningful changes both in their lives and in the way the country is governed. There were personnel changes in all but one of the four categories of elections – the Presidential. The changes in parliament and councils were striking: of the 124 parliamentarians that were elected in 2007, only 42 of them were re-elected. These include 23 members of the ruling All Peoples Congress and 13 representatives of the Sierra Leone Peoples’ Party. Only half of the Paramount Chief Representatives in parliament were re-elected.
Nearly four months after exercising our right to make changes in various governing bodies, however, Sierra Leoneans are slowly resigning to the all too familiar fate that their power to make meaningful changes in the administration of local councils is limited. The limitations are caused in part by the Local Government Act 2004 and the somewhat unchanging disposition of local council administrators towards critical governance issues as transparency, accountability and citizens’ participation. Participation in governance could take the form of voting or contesting elections; one could also participate in meetings convened by Ward Development Committees or participate in developing annual development plans. There is hardly any doubt that the greater the participation levels in communities, the more likely local council policies, decisions and actions will support local needs and objectives.
A synopsis of current situation in Sierra Leone:
A Local Government Act was promulgated in 2004 as part of efforts to create platforms and opportunities for residents to directly participate in developing initiatives for community empowerment and development. It was hoped that increased public participation could spur greater transparency from the councils and contribute to the community development agenda. In truth, each of the 19 Local Councils and the Ministry of Local Government have generally under-performed since 2004, even if in varying degrees, to create an enabling atmosphere for genuine community participation in the administration of councils. There’s urgent need to address this gap. Part of the solution could lie in depoliticizing representation at the local level. Where elections are conducted on the basis of individual strength and merit, it is more likely to advance competent representation rather than the current system that tends to elevate party loyalists to serious positions, regardless of their ability or level of competence. In the course of implementing an OSIWA-funded project in 2011, many participants at community outreach events complained that a majority of Ward Development Committee members were either selected on the basis of their political affiliations or through botched elections organized by councillors. The Ward Development Committees essentially seemed to lack legitimacy in the eyes of the people. This partly explained why the number of participants at Ward Committee meetings was increasingly dwindling all the time. The few Ward Committees that remained functional hardly received support from the councils. It was quite shocking to have heard that some councillors reportedly concocted minutes of Ward Committee meetings, if only to claim monthly allowances from councils. Ultimately, many council administrators became distrustful of reports submitted by councillors, and rightly so. Additionally, it was clearly evident from discussions at community and media outreach events that councillors and council principals were at loggerheads over just about everything – including the process of awarding development project contracts, revenue generation and utilization, among others. In all of this, the perennial losers are the people. They have been deprived of the opportunity to genuinely participate in the planning and monitoring development activities in their communities. Some of these challenges could be addressed by amending the Local Government Act 2004 to ensure that roles are properly defined and representation in councils is based not on party politics.
To further help address the participation gap that currently exists, there is also a need to review the Local Government Act 2004 to make provision for direct financial support to councillors and Ward Committee members. The current arrangement is at best unfeasible. Genuine participation at the local government level starts with effective, legitimate, and well-resourced Ward Development Committees. It is important to underline the point that only councillors participate in council meetings. Members of the public can only observe, if they choose to attend such meetings. Their views, concerns and recommendations can only be heard during Ward Committee meetings. Those views are expected to be presented by their respective councillors during council meetings. Theoretically, community development projects are expected to reflect the outcomes of those meetings. In the absence of regular and effective meetings at ward level, it is difficult to see how local voices can impact community development projects. At the moment, Ward Committees are not functioning effectively. Part of the reason is that the incentive or motivation is pretty much absent. Community people and their Ward Committee members have painful experiences of total neglect by councils. This does not inspire them – it weakens their enthusiasm and spirit of volunteerism.
It is also worth mentioning that Ward Committee members do not get any stipend or remuneration for their time and services. They are simply volunteers. The councillors receive a paltry sum of money as monthly allowance. In many instances, however, the allowances are not regularly paid. During a recent consultative conference organized by CARL and its partners, various councillors complained that Le50,000 (approximately $11) is slashed from the paltry Le250,000 (approximately $58) monthly stipend they receive as mandatory contributions to their respective political parties. That is simply scandalous and unacceptable. I recommend that the Ministry of Local Government and other relevant state institutions intervene to stop this blatant extortion. This is part of the reason I think the future of effective and competent representation at local government level lies in completely removing party politics from local governance.
There seems to be a representation and participation crisis at the local level that needs immediate attention. The good news is that there have been elections for Ward Committees in most or all of the Wards in the Western Urban District, and CARL has been quite involved with monitoring the process. The elections were generally transparent and a positive departure from the selective nature of previous ones. It gives me hope that with increased support from council administrators, this could help engender interest and participation in governance issues at the local level. There seems to be a general lack of enthusiasm, however, to participate in Ward Committees probably because of the many years of broken promises by councils and the unrewarding nature of the voluntary services provided by Ward Committee members.
How can some of these challenges be addressed? It’s time to scale up support for our councillors and Ward Committees. To help strengthen Ward Development Committees, there’s need to ensure competent representation through transparent and credible elections. The Ministry of Local Government should also take its supervisory and facilitation role much more seriously than it has since 2004. Additionally, councillors and Ward Committee members should be given more resources to facilitate interaction between them and their communities. Ward Committee members should also receive stipends for their useful contributions to their communities. Once they are incentivized, they could be resourceful in terms of tax collection. For some of these recommendations to work, there is an obvious need to amend the Local Government Act 2004.
As part of efforts to plug the participation and transparency gap in local government, thanks to ongoing support from OSIWA, CARL and its partners will recruit and train at least 10 community-based monitors each in six districts to help monitor the level of compliance or otherwise with transparency provisions in the Local Government Act 2004. CARL and its partners will also help local councils develop communication strategies as well as encourage transparent elections for Ward Committees. We will provide basic training and guidelines that will help them do their work better. The challenges are certainly huge, but addressing the participation gap in local government is certainly not beyond our reach. It’s time to do it!
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
On January 26th, CARL and Action Aid-SL hosted a National Conference on Addressing Socio- Economic Justice Through Effective Public Resource Management in Bo, Southern Sierra Leone.. Various members of local government and civil society gathered to develop practical solutions to serious challenges of development and resource management. Many productive solutions were generated, however, one notion has presented itself as the most urgent and striking. Thus, the most critical finding of the conference has been the need for increased citizen participation in public resource management.
An informed and participatory public is essential to good and responsible governance. Without diligent civil society and active citizenry, mechanisms of transparency and accountability are weak and likely to fail. As public information is restricted and discretion is left to a select few, opportunities for corruption and misappropriation are exponentially increased. Regardless of age, gender and socio-economic background, all people of Sierra Leone deserve to have their voices heard equally. A bottom up approach to development will yield far better results for the nation than the current top down methodology.
For too long, the needs of marginalized groups have been neglected by the government. And for too long, self-proclaimed elites and greedy foreigners have been enjoying more than their fair share of Sierra Leone’s wealth. Despite the fact that this land has been blessed with an abundance of natural resources, the country continues to suffer in poverty, still struggling to provide basic social services to the citizens of the country. It is time that the citizens of Sierra Leone take back control of what is rightfully theirs and begin to benefit from the wealth of their land. It is time that citizens demand responsible public resource management and opportunities for involvement. This process must first begin with demands for legitimate knowledge in an effective and relevant manner. Civil society and local government are tools meant to be utilized by the people for communication and education, as well as to agitate and advocate on their behalf.
We at CARL urgently call for the following actions in regards to public participation in resource management, increased transparency and accountability in governance:
Accountability and honesty must become a part of everyday life, as it affects all people in a society, not just those of authority. It is important to instill these principles in the youth of the nation in order to create a responsible citizenry for the future. By practicing accountability in the home, school and workplace, a true attitudinal change towards corruption and accountability may occur.
All governmental and non-governmental stakeholders in public resource management must account for their activities. Those who handle public funds and goods must be able to clearly articulate the ways in which they are being used. Through the creation and maintenance of public notice boards, particularly at the local level, institutions may demonstrate their dedication to efficient and honest work in an easily accessible fashion.
Aforementioned institutions should also be able to produce documentation on accountability policies and practices upon request. Official policy statements ensure that actors stay true to their values in both word and deed. Official documentation protects institutions and the public by giving clear and objective standards for dealing with conflict. It goes without saying that a Freedom of Information law is a critical requirement for citizens to be able to fully utilize such documents.
In 2012, Sierra Leone received a score of 39 out of 100 on the Open Budget Index. This score indicates that minimal information has been provided to the public, in effect, limiting public participation. We call for an improvement of this score through the timely publication of eight key annual budget documents, including, the pre-budget statement, mid year review and citizen’s budget. The present deliberate restriction of budget information has created a breeding ground for corruption.
Opportunities must be provided for citizen participation in budget creation. We call for legitimate venues for public opinion to be heard, such as the allowance for public testimonies during budget hearings.
Lastly, it is necessary to reestablish roles of landowners, paramount chiefs and central government in public resource management. CSOs and local government must advocate for the protection of resources. Protective measures must be put in place in order for Sierra Leone to begin enjoying the wealth of the land.
It is our hope that the implementation of these recommendations leads to responsible public resource management and true socio-economic justice. As always, our mission at CARL is to improve governance through transparency and accountability. However, this mission will not be accomplished without widespread public participation and support. Communication and cooperation between citizens and institutions will be necessary in order to assert demands for public information and involvement. Immediate action must be taken in this matter before more opportunities slip away and additional resources go to waste.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
The case of the State V Abass Chernor Bundu is a case that has brought to the spotlight the unnecessary delays experienced in court when dealing especially with matters with obvious or apparent political tinge. Mr. Abass Chernor Bundu served as Secretary General of ECOWAS and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the then National Provisional Ruling Council that toppled APC led government in 1992. He was charged on seven counts of Larceny contrary to section 17 of the Larceny Act, 1916 and conspiracy to defraud the state of Sierra Leone for his alleged role in the sale of Sierra Leonean passports to nationals of Hong Kong way back in 1995 and 1996. He was arraigned before Magistrate Komba Kamanda of Court No. 2 in the capital Freetown on the 14th of April, 2012. This matter had been brought to court during the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP)-led administration by former President Ahmed Tejan Kabbah. The matter was later on discharged.
When the matter was re-opened last year, many viewed it as a political witch hunt by the current administration to discourage him from engaging in any political activity in the just concluded multi-tier elections. That’s just rumour, of course, but the prosecution has had a very long time to present the evidence it has against the accused. Unfortunately, it’s been ten months since Dr. Abass Bundu was arraigned and there’s been no significant progress in the matter. Only one prosecution witness has testified so far. If the prosecution does not have strong evidence against the accused, the normal thing is to do right by the accused and file a motion to discharge the matter. The Magistrate has a huge role to play as well. He can ask the prosecution to wrap up his case or make a ruling based on what he has before him; Of course, after giving the defence a chance to respond to whatever is before the court. CARL believes that all the parties to a trial have a responsibility to their clients to expedite judicial proceedings, but where the Judge or Magistrate thinks that one of the parties is “playing games” with the court, we submit that the court must do the right thing by the accused or the complainant.
Others have argued, and rightly so, that a discharge is not a bar to future prosecution. Since the accused was arraigned on the 14th April 2012, little or no progress has been made. The prosecution, represented by Principal State Counsel Gerald Soyei, has applied for adjournments for five consecutive times, mostly on less than compelling reasons. The defence, led by Sulaiman Banja Tejan-sei Esq, has expressed disappointment at the snail pace of the trial.
Even after the 2012 elections, which in the view of many, prompted the re-opening of the case, it is rumoured that that the prosecution is dragging its feet on the matter to keep it in court for as long as it is politically – perhaps not judicially necessary. In the last proceeding, the prosecution came to court and continued from where the court left off: by applying an adjournment only to seek further instructions from the Attorney General. The matter was adjourned to March 27, 2013. Does the prosecution, which clearly understands the importance of expeditious trial, need nine weeks to seek instructions from the Attorney General and Minister of Justice?
Even though the accused has been released on bail, it is very clear that keeping the matter in court for almost one year has affected his businesses, family and other related activities.
It is time for the justice system, and it is important to stress that the head of the Law Officers Department is also the Minister of Justice, to continue to clean up its not-so endearing public image, preserve its stature, respect, independence and demonstrate regard for the rule of law. The accused should, according to the rule of law, be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Justice delayed is not only justice denied, it is the rule of the law undermined. It is critical that the Prosecution begins to treat the matter with utmost seriousness, by bringing forward the pieces of evidence it claims to have against the accused.
There are many reasons for undue delays in trials in Sierra Leone, and CARL has identified the frequent and the sometimes totally unnecessary grounds of application for adjournments. It is in the interest of justice, for the prosecution to be given adequate time to present its case. Of course, it is equally important for the defence to be able to respond to the prosecution’s case. The court must, however, balance these compelling demands of procedural law with the defendant’s right to fair and expeditious trial. Of course, the Sierra Leone judiciary faces numerous logistics and personnel challenges, but it must begin to address these challenges.
Undue delays erode public confidence in the justice system, and potentially creates a culture of violence. It is but proper that matters are being tried in the best interest of all and sundry and within a reasonable time frame. In order to continue on the path of sustainable reforms, justice must be accessible to everyone, regardless of their political, economic or sexual orientation.
