by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
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.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
Court proceedings at the formal justice system in Sierra Leone are conducted in English, the country’s official language. Although an application could be made on behalf of a litigant by their lawyer to conduct proceedings in local languages, this does not happen very often. In any case, if the litigants cannot speak or understand English, the service of an interpreter is always required as it is mandatory for lawyers to address the Bench in English. Many court users, however, have expressed disappointment at the paucity of interpreters particularly at the Magistrate Courts. Most litigants in the provinces cannot speak or understand English, and sometimes find it difficult to comprehend Krio. They mostly need interpretation services, and unfortunately, they do not always get it. This may amount to a breach of their rights. As a result, some litigants either refuse to appear in court or fail to provide a detailed and accurate testimony relating to the trial. This could have an adverse effect on the outcome of trials. To address this, there is a genuine need to recruit more interpreters, train and assign them to various Magistrate courts across the country.
This article seeks to highlight some of the challenges facing the interpretation unit of the Bo Magistrate Court, and to proffer some suggestions regarding how they can be addressed.
National laws and international conventions governing trials provide that accused persons and witnesses be provided the services of interpreters. For instance, Article 14(3) (f) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides that persons charged with criminal offence should be entitled to free assistance of an interpreter during trials if such persons cannot speak the language of the Court. Section 23(5)(e) of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone provides that “a person charged with a criminal offence shall be accorded, without payment, the assistance of an interpreter if such person cannot adequately understand the language of the court”. The Constitution provides for the services of an interpreter in order to protect the fair trial rights of the accused, and ensure that they understand and follow the proceedings. Competent interpreters can also help expedite trials. Court-appointed interpreters also enhance equality of arms, which is another requirement for fair trial.
The role of interpreters in the administration of justice cannot be overemphasized. The principle of equality of arms requires, among other things, that both parties in a trial be afforded equal opportunities before a court of law to present their own side of the story. None of them should enjoy an undue advantage that might prejudice the other during the presentation of their cases.
The Seat of the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone
CARL-SL is not aware, though, of any policy statement issued by Sierra Leone’s Chief Justice regarding the quality and number of interpreters every court should recruit.
The CARL experience in Bo shows that even though the court appoints interpreters, however, the quality of interpretation leaves much to be desired. This is partly because the interpreters are either untrained to faithfully interpret some complex legal issues, and largely because the paucity of interpreters means that they are overwhelmed with interpretation duties. It is a shame that in some cases, Court clerks double as recorders and interpreters. Consequently, proceedings are adjourned whenever the interpreter is absent, thereby prolonging trials.
Even more embarrassing is the fact that police prosecutors, who are representatives of the Inspector General in criminal trials, are sometimes called upon to serve as interpreters. It is frightening and unthinkable that prosecutors are required to translate in a matter in which they are a party. There is also a likelihood that the prosecuting interpreters may renege on their moral responsibility of saying the truth. This obviously erodes public confidence in the justice system, and makes the accused person in particular absolutely nervous about the outcome of the trial. CARL has persistently observed that some interpreters only choose to provide translation services in cases where they have vested interest, either as friends of one of the litigants or where they have received tips for their services. On some occasions, litigants have had the need to appeal to court officers for help with interpretation. This ultimately increases litigation fees, and invariably discourages people from accessing the courts. Something needs to be done about this, almost immediately.
Implications for Justice
This state of affairs presents grave implications for the justice system: The dearth of interpreters means frequent adjournments in trials, thereby causing unnecessary delays in trials. Accused persons have a right to speedy trial, and inordinate delays sometimes caused by the absence or unavailability of interpreters could constitute a breach of their rights. Furthermore, in instances where prosecutors are called upon to interpret, the accused persons particularly cannot be sure whether the conversations are faithfully interpreted. Court clerks are overwhelmed, which invariably affects their effectiveness and concentration levels.
Recommendations:
The Sierra Leone judiciary needs to provide guidelines to enhance fairness and consistency in interpretation. In order to enhance this, the following is worth considering:
Trained interpreters should be assigned to Magistrate and other superior courts of judicature throughout the country. The fact is that every field has its own language; it only makes sense that the judiciary undertakes massive recruitment and training of interpreters in the different Sierra Leone languages. The Special Court for Sierra Leone is winding down its activities, and will leave behind a pool of well-trained and professional interpreters. With a little bit of motivation, these interpreters will be more than willing to contribute to local justice. After all, this was meant to be part of the Court’s legacy program. CARL urges the Consultant Master and Registrar to look into the possibility of recruiting some of these professional interpreters to serve the courts as well as train others.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
The Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) on 24th May 2011 instructed two independent counsel to issue indictments and subsequently prosecute individuals for contempt of the Special court. In its order, the Court directs Robert C Herbst and William L Gardener to prosecute Hassan Papa Bangura (aka Bomblast), Samuel Kargbo (aka Sammy Ragga), Santigie Borbor Kanu, Brima Bazzy Kamara and Eric Senessie for allegedly interfering with the Court’s administration of justice by offering bribes to witnesses to recant earlier evidence presented to the court.
Brima Bazzy Kamara
Santigie Borbor Kanu
In the first set of indictments, Bangura, Kargbo, Kanu are separately charged with 2 counts of offering bribes and influencing witnesses to recant earlier evidence given to the SCSL. Kamara faces a three-count indictment for influencing witnesses by offering bribes and disclosing confidential information regarding the identity of a protected witness.
Hon. Justice Teresa Doherty
In the second set of indictments, Senessie is charged with 9 counts for attempting to influence witnesses to recant evidence earlier given to the court. While the first set of indictments relates to the concluded trial between the Prosecutor against Alex Tamba Brima, Brima Bazzy Kamara and Santigie Borbor Kanu, the second set relates to matters arising from the trial of former Liberian president Charles Taylor.
On 25th February 2011, SCSL Prosecutors filed a motion requesting the Court to conduct investigations for Eric Senessie or Prince Taylor for acts allegedly amounting to contempt of court.[1] The prosecution submitted that the Court appoints an independent counsel pursuant to Rule 77 (C)(iii) of the Court’s Rules of Evidence and Procedure (The Rules), to investigate possible contempt of the SCSL in relation to four prosecution witnesses; TF1-568, TF1–330, TF1–585 and TF1–516. It is alleged that in January 2011, TF1-568, TF1–330 and TF1–585 were contacted through telephone and in person first by Eric Senessie, a former Revolutionary United Front (RUF) combatant, and subsequently by Prince Taylor, a former employee of the Defence Office. In their statements, the witnesses alleged that Mr. Senessie told them that he was sent by Charles Taylor’s defence team to persuade them to recant their previous sworn testimony and testify that their previous testimony before the SCSL was given based on prosecution’s promise of financial benefits and relocation. The witness further recalled that Mr. Senessie promised a huge financial reward if they agreed to corporate.
Judges of Trial Chamber II granted the prosecution’s urgent interim measure for the court to conduct an investigation of contempt of the SCSL. The Chamber thus directed the Registrar of the Court to appoint an experienced independent counsel to investigate the allegation that a person or persons including Senessie and Taylor are in contempt of court pursuant to Rule 77 (A) (ii), (iv) and (B) of the court’s Rules by disclosing information relating to proceedings thereby revealing the identities of protected witnesses, interfering with witnesses by offering bribes, requiring them to recant the earlier evidence. Rule 77 provides inter alia that the court may punish for contempt of person who wilfully interferes with the court’s administration of justice by disclosing information relating to proceedings, offers a bribe, threaten or intimidate a witness who has given evidence before the court.[2] The Registrar appointed William L. Gardner as an experienced independent counsel on March 18 2011 to conduct investigations relating to prosecutions allegations.
Following a further direction by the Chamber that the independent counsel submitting a report as to whether there are sufficient grounds for instigating contempt proceedings, Mr. Gardner submitted a report of his findings on 21st April 2011 in which he concluded that while there was insufficient evidence to proceed in contempt against Prince Taylor, “there are sufficient grounds to proceed against Eric Senessie for contempt of Court.” Following the submission of the report which was kept under seal, the Chamber ordered that an “Order in lieu of Indictment” be issued against Mr. Senessie and directed the independent counsel to prosecute Mr. Senessie pursuant to said indictment.[3]
In the order in lieu of indictment, the independent counsel charged Mr. Senessie with 5 counts of interfering with witnesses who earlier testified before the court by attempting to influence them, 4 counts of offering bribes to witnesses who have testified before the Special Court in return for them to recant their previous evidence. Specifically, the allegations relate to alleged bribes and relocation being offered to Dauda Aruna Fornie, Mohamed Kabba, TF–516 and TF1-585, all of whom have testified in the prosecution’s case against Charles Taylor.
In a separate direction, the Registrar appointed Robert L. Herbst as another experienced independent counsel on 23rd March 2011, to investigate the prosecution’s allegations of contempt brought against Santigie Borbor Kanu and Brima Bazzy Kamara who were convicted by the SCSL in the trial involving former commanders of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) and are currently serving prison sentences in Rwanda, together with former AFRC members Hassan Papa Bangura (aka Bomblast), Samuel Kargbo (aka Sammy Ragga). On the 11th May 2011, the independent counsel submitted his report to the Judges stating that there are sufficient grounds to believe that all four persons had indeed breached protective measures for witnesses by contacting a protected witness asking him to recant his evidence earlier given to SCSL. The Judges subsequently ordered that an Order in lieu of indictment for contempt be issued against all four persons and that the independent Counsel prosecutes them pursuant to said indictment.
Mr Herbst has accused all four persons of trying to bribe and influence Protected Witness TF1-334 who earlier testified against the AFRC accused (now convicts) before SCSL and an additional charge of disclosing confidential information for Bazzy Kamara, who it is alleged, revealed the identity of protected witness TF1-033 to Samuel Kargbo.[4] The Trial Chamber has further assigned both contempt proceedings to Justice Teresa Doherty, currently serving as a trial judge with Trial Chamber II.
It is a matter for the Chamber to determine the method/or mode of adjudication once they have reason to believe that there is a ground for contempt. The Chamber can either deal with the matter summarily, or refer it to an appropriate authority in Sierra Leone or as they did with these situations, request the Registrar to appoint an independent counsel to investigate and subsequently prosecute. Maximum penalty to be imposed had the matter been tried summarily would have been a term of imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or a fine not exceeding Two Million Leones (Le 2,000,000) or both. However, with the current situations, a person upon conviction may serve a maximum term of imprisonment of Seven (7) years or a fine not exceeding Two Million Leones (Le 2,000,000) or both. All accused persons will be provided with legal assistance as provided in Rule 45 of the Court’s Rules.
While it is not yet clear where the contempt proceedings will be held, there is a possibility that the AFRC convicts Kamara and Kanu will have their prison terms suspended and be made to leave their Mpanga prison in Rwanda for a temporary period to attend the aforementioned proceedings if they are held at a place outside Rwanda. This leaves open the question of the real purpose of the contempt proceedings. it is still not clear whether it is a means of deterrence aiming to send a strong message that intimidation or other means of influence will not have a place even when the court would have wound up, or just a check on convicted persons and people who have participated in any of SCSL’s trials, to continue to respect principles of confidentiality.
In Sierra Leone, allegations of contempt are mostly dealt with summarily by Members of the Bench. While this is understandable in light of the numerous logistics challenges that confront the justice system, it is hoped that the judiciary may learn from the Special Court precedent and start instituting full-scale proceedings regarding allegations of contempt. This may be particularly useful in cases where the accused strenuously denies such allegations. CARL believes, though, that the impending contempt proceedings will have implications particularly for the Court’s budget and the time table for the Taylor trial. In terms of the Court’s funding, funds will have to be disbursed to pay the independent counsel (both prosecution and defence) and support the transfer of the accused, regardless of where the proceedings will be held. In terms of its implication for the schedule of the Taylor trial, there is likelihood of a slight delay in handing down a verdict.
Justice Teresa Doherty, who has been designated to preside over the proceedings, may be required to split her time between the Taylor trial and the contempt proceedings. Even if the Honourable Justice is to deal with both the Taylor deliberations and the contempt proceedings consecutively, there might still be a delay in concluding the trial, especially if the proceedings commence before Trial Chamber II concludes its deliberations.
From a Special Court point of view, the contempt proceedings may help deter convicts, Court employees as well as members of the public from attempting to unduly influence the outcome of its trials. Regardless of the likely implications, proceedings of this nature clearly tend to strengthen the rule of law and protect the integrity of the judicial process. Our national judicial system and other International Criminal tribunals can continue to strengthen the respect for the rule of law by emulating such practices or adapting it where necessary.
[1] See SCSL-03-01-T-1218, Decision on Public with Confidential Annexes A to E and Public Annex F Urgent Prosecution Motion for an Investigation into Contempt of the Special Court for Sierra Leone and Public with confidential Annex A & B Urgent Prosecution Motion for an Investigation into contempt of the Special Court for Sierra Leone.
[2] See SCSL Rules of Procedure and Evidence as amended on 28 May 2010 (Rule 77 (A) (i)(iv), (B)
[3] See Decision on the report of the Independent Counsel, SCSL-03-1-T, May 24, 2011
[4] See Decision on the report of the Independent Counsel, SCSL-04-16-ES, May 24 2011.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
Approximately 70 percent of Sierra Leone’s population relies on traditional form of justice, which is usually more accessible, cheaper, and faster in disposing cases. Although the local court system has limited jurisdiction, it has powers to hear both civil and criminal cases. As a court of first instance, it also has the original jurisdiction to hear and determine all land cases in the provinces. Presided over by a chairman, assisted by a clerk and at least three assessors
(who are knowledgeable in the traditions and customs of their respective ethnic groups), local or Native Administrative (NA) Courts are required by law to hear and determine cases fairly, impartially and without fear or favour. Every NA Court Chairman is under oath to “do right to all manner of people according to the laws and customs recognized by such court without fear or favour, affection or ill will”, according to Section 4 of the Local Court Act of 1963 (as amended) and section 15 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone.
Article 14 (1) of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that “All persons shall be equal before the courts”. This means, among other things, that all persons must be given the right
to equal access to a court of law. Article 14 (1) also provides for a fair hearing by a competent, independent and impartial court established by law. One of the fundamental determinants of the fairness or otherwise of a trial is the extent to which the principle of ‘equality of arms’ is observed. This principle requires that all parties in a trial are treated equally in the interpretation of applicable laws and procedures. The laws and procedures must not be changed or interpreted based on the impulse of court officials.
In spite of these legal provisions, the Chairman of NA Court No. 2 in Bo has clearly shown partiality in an ongoing trial. Specifically, the Chairman deliberately prevented the panel of assessors from cross examining the defendant and his witnesses in order to give the plaintiff an undue advantage. Even though cross examination is normally done by him and the panel of assessors, on this occasion, he chose to do it alone, much to the amazement and disappointment of his colleagues.
The particulars of the case are that the defendant (tenant) and the plaintiff (landlord) allegedly entered into a tenancy agreement in which the defendant accepted to give the building a facelift, with the understanding that the total expenses will be deducted from the rent. Both parties allegedly subsequently agreed that the defendant should occupy the apartment for a year in lieu of the Le300,000 (approximately $70) he had spent to fix the apartment. The defendant claims that the tenancy agreement had not elapsed when the landlord asked him to quit. This Landlord claims that the tenant ought to have paid him an additional Le40,000 (approximately $9) as part of the contract, which the tenant refused to pay. The landlord filed a suit seeking the court to order the tenant to quit and pay the arrears owed to him.
As a way of tilting the balance in favour of the plaintiff, the Court Chairman deliberately shut out the panel of assessors during the cross-examination of the defendant and his witnesses, which constituted a clear breach of standard procedures of the Court. Even when the panel of assessors remonstrated against his strategy in the full glare of the public, he did not budge. A CARL employee, who was monitoring the trial, was shocked at the embarrassing conduct of the Court Chairman. The line of cross-examination that was adopted by the Chairman was not only out of order, it clearly showed how determined he was to aid his friend (the plaintiff) to get a favourable judgment. Here’s an excerpt from the transcript prepared by CARL:
Chairman (cross-examining the defendant): “Did you inform the Area Chief about the Le300,000 (approximately $70) worth of materials you used to fix the apartment?”
“Did you sign your expenditure document before presenting it to your Landlord?”
(To the defence witness): “Did you see the tenant present the list of his expenditure to the Landlord for his approval by signing it?”
It was obvious that the Court Chairman wanted to establish a new set of rules guiding the relationship between tenants and landlords because never before has any tenant brought in an Area Chief in the signing of a tenancy agreement. Additionally, it is very uncommon for tenants to prepare and sign expenditure claims before presenting them to landlords. It is almost a no-no for tenants to bring in Area chiefs on tenancy agreements in urban communities like Bo city. The fact is that the Court Chairman knew that the defendant did not do it, and did not have to do it, as a matter of fact. He simply went out of his way to make the defendant appear like the guilty party. What usually happens is that a verbal statement of approval or disapproval is given by the landlord as long as there is at least a witness. Thousands of such agreements are entered into on a daily bases in the provinces, where most of those in such agreement cannot read and write.
Although a verdict has not been handed down in this matter, it is very likely that the Chairman, who has overtly demonstrated a bias in favour of the plaintiff, will enter a guilty verdict against the defendant. Unfortunate to mention, however, while litigants have a right to file an appeal against verdict in the inferior courts, most court users are either unaware of the procedures involved or do not have the funds to pay for legal services. It is especially recommended that public awareness programmes relating to access to justice are undertaken. That way, court officials will get better at their jobs, and court users will know that other options are available to them.
organizations with the skills and resources begin to focus on monitoring the courts. In particular, the local courts, where most abuses take place either due to ignorance or lack of monitors, require additional training programmes. That is why CARL will remain committed to monitoring the courts as well as undertaking training programmes for court officials. Although CARL will continue to monitor the courts, it is recommended that other human rights
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Uncategorized
Introduction
The Native Administrative court, also known as local court of Sierra Leone, derives its authority from the Local Courts Act, 1963; the Courts Act, 1965 and Section 170 of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone which deals with the laws of Sierra Leone. The said Section states, amongst others, that the laws of Sierra Leone shall comprise “rules of customary law including those determined by the Superior Court of Judicature”; and “customary law” means “the rules of law which by custom are applicable to particular communities in Sierra Leone”. Thus, the Native Administrative courts are legally constituted to dispense justice in accordance with the cultural, social and traditional setting of their different communities. This traditional court system underscores Sierra Leone’s dual judicial system comprising both the formal and informal; the formal system deals with matters of general law applicable in the magistrate’s court, the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court; whereas the informal system is mainly preoccupied with issues arising out of customary law. In addition, whereas the dispensation of justice in the general law courts is determined by legal procedures and principles based on standards sanctioned by law, decisions in the local courts are primarily based on existing orally transmitted norms of the different customs and communities. In essence, customary laws are largely unwritten.
The local court is comprised of a chairman, vice chairman and other ordinary members or assessors (also known as council of elders), and officers including clerks and bailiffs who carry out administrative duties and assist in the execution of court orders. It is presided over by a Chairman, who is assisted by a Vice-Chairman and such other members as may be appointed by the Minister of Local Government (the Minister). The said Minister is also empowered to appoint a Chairman and Vice-Chairman. The Native Administration court has limited jurisdiction in both criminal and civil cases and determine matters which fall within its territorial limits-the chiefdom. It serves as a medium to punish law breakers; have aggrieved parties compensated adequately as well as amicably settle disputes within the chiefdom, especially those that pertain to land tenure and ownership, marriage, and succession or inheritance. Proceeds from fines levied against disputing parties are supposed to be used on community development matters.
The majority of Sierra Leoneans are governed by customary law. Yet, very little attention is paid to the workings of the court. The proceedings in the customary courts are marred by many deficiencies which seriously undermine both the administration of justice and the traditional values that initially gave rise to their establishment. This piece seeks to examine some of the challenges encountered in litigating in a local court and attempts to make suggestions for meaningful reform.
Proceedings
The conduct of proceedings in the Native Administration court is often held in an unfriendly atmosphere characterized by fear and intimidation. Court officials are notorious for intimidating parties by frequently shouting at them, thereby creating panic and despondence. Litigants, therefore, find it difficult to compose themselves well when giving evidence. The situation is even made worse especially when women are involved either as witnesses or as victims. Due to the uncongenial atmosphere and the fact that court sessions are almost always open, even where children are involved, which requires closed sessions, they most times feel reticent to testify. The situation is not helped also where issues bothering on sexual conduct are at the nucleus of the matter; women are equally timid to explain in public what transpires between them and their husbands within the confines of the bedroom. Such practice has the tendency to negatively impact the entire trial process and by extension the outcome of the matter. Thus, a good number of people, including women have resorted to using the “chiefs’ courts” also dubbed the “Kangaroo courts” illegally established by local chiefs with far reaching jurisdiction than the statutorily established local court.
In addition to the unhealthy atmosphere, strepitus judicialis (disruptive behavior in court) frequently obstructs court proceedings often resulting to untimely adjournments during hearings. The continuous movement of court officers within and around the court premises distracts the attention of the Chairmen and Assessors from adjudicating properly. From time to time, Councilors and Chiefdom Committee Members would come around the courtroom and speak in chambers with court officers during sessions thus in some way undermining the integrity of hearings. At times when court officers retire to chambers, they may not show up to continue sessions and that might be the end of the day’s proceedings.
Jurisdictional Issues
The Native Administration court has competence over all civil matters covered by customary law and those governed by general law where the claim does not exceed Le 250,000. This provision is sometimes applied Mutatis Mutandis. Local courts also have competence in criminal cases where the sentence does not exceed six months or fine does not exceed Le50, 000. However, the courts do not always adhere to this statutory provision stricti juris; that is, according to the exact law. The courts often adjudicate in cases that do not fall within their competence. For instance, at the Local Court No. l in Kakua Chiefdom, Bo district, a lady (name withheld) was summoned for failing to pay a debt amounting to Le 747,000. Legally, this matter falls outside the jurisdiction of the local court. But because of limited jurisdictional knowledge about the court on the part of the litigants, the matter was adjudicated upon in the court. This example is illustrative of how many courts adjudicate myriad of cases that are not within their jurisdiction.
The Courts of Paramount Chiefs
Additionally, paramount chiefs also create their own courts to try matters that are sometimes above the jurisdiction of local courts. Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Courts Act, paramount chiefs have no business in setting up courts to hear matters. Their duties are purely administrative and not judicial. However, most paramount chiefs establish a committee known as Council of Elders who assists them in running these courts. These courts are not only illegal but also undermine the authority of the local courts. Most of the cases adjudicated by the paramount chiefs are only given a different nomenclature often as family matters so as to give them the ‘mandate’ to sit and adjudicate such matters. It is surprising and ironical to note that the fines levied in such courts far outweighs those levied in the legally established courts, with no checks and balances as to how proceeds are spent. That besides, almost all court chairmen often decline to adjudicate matters that have once been settled by paramount chiefs in order not to annoy them.
Recommendations
Majority of Sierra Leoneans use this system, and therefore deserves equal attention as others in the justice sector. The current on-going institutional reforms should not be limited only to the formal sector but should also be extended to the informal sector as well. This is primarily because the tendency for abuse of authority is more susceptible in local courts than in the general law courts. The reason for such may be partly attributed to the fact that customary laws are mostly unwritten; but also because majority of the people who use them do not know the limitation of their authority. Furthermore, the bulk of them are not even aware of the limited rights provided them under customary law such as the right to appeal to the customary law officer in the district. In addition, most of the local court officers do not have the basic knowledge on the operations of the country’s legal system in general.
To this end, it is important that realistic infrastructural improvements to local courts which practically eliminates discriminatory customs and practices, education on human rights particularly those bothering on women’s and children’s rights are undertaken. Also, trainings in legal provisions, human rights and contemporary legal techniques are regularly done as these trainings will help enhance their judicial performance. There should also be constant outreach activities in communities on the jurisdiction of the court, procedures and rights of parties in a law suit. CARL believes that if customary law is to remain a viable component of the laws of Sierra Leone, then the recommendations suggested should be given serious thought by all stakeholders in the justice sector.
