by ibakarr | Sep 8, 2014 | Uncategorized
The ongoing case of the State v Mamoud Tarawallie before the High Court of Sierra Leone is the most high-profile sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) case in recent Sierra Leonean history. The amount of media attention it has attracted; in addition to the former position of the accused within the government, requires
a particularly careful administration of justice in order to help build further trust in the justice system. Many SGBV crimes in Sierra Leone still go unreported, or are resolved by out of court settlement, a situation which itself continues to haunt the pursuit of justice for victims of SGBV and accountability for perpetrators.
Mamoud Tarawallie, former Deputy Education Minister of Sierra Leone, on 16 September 2013 was charged with (1) rape, (2) wounding, (3) wounding with intent and (4) assault. The complaint was filed by a 24year old student at the University of Sierra Leone in Freetown. After the Magistrate Court No. 2 had found a prima facie case, the case was brought before Justice Abdulai Charm. As the hearings continue before the High Court, CARL is monitoring the case closely and has identified a number of issues of concern.
On 3 July 2014 the prosecution presented their second witness (PW2) from the Family Support Unit (FSU) of the Sierra Leone Police (SLP) who had been involved in the investigation when the victim initially reported the case to the police. The witness spoke to certain pieces of evidence that the investigation team had collected at the crime scene, including a yellow and white comb and two brown beads, as well as a green pair of pants which the victim reportedly had brought to the police and which served as exhibit in the court. The witness further confirmed that while various pairs of pants were also found at the crime scene these were not collected and recorded as pieces of evidence. During the cross-examination, Defence Counsel Suleiman Kabba asked the witness (police investigator) to confirm his statement that the victim had not identified a particular pair of pants to the witness at the crime scene. After the witness had confirmed this statement, Defence Counsel proceeded to recall to the witness the statement the witness had given during the Preliminary Investigation before the Magistrate Court No. 2. In the said statement, this witness had testified that the victim had identified a pair of white pants at the crime scene as the pair of pants she had worn on the day the alleged incident occurred. Referring to the disposition of that statement, Counsel for the Defence noted to the Judge that the witness had made contradictory statements in relation to the pants.
The alleged inconsistency of the witness’ statements raised questions about whether the witness genuinely forgot or lied under oath. This is a matter for the Court to determine, but it is obvious that if the Court concludes that the witness lied under oath, it could have serious implications for the validity of his statements not only pertaining to the pair of pants but in respect of his entire testimony. It is an offence, too. It remains to be seen to what extent his answers during cross examination could affect the prosecution’s case with his testimony.
This case highlights the need for police officers to receive sufficient training for in-court testimony in order not to adversely compromise court proceedings. It is paramount that police officers know and adhere to the rules of evidence and ensure that the outcome of such important trials is not determined on the basis of their failure to effectively dispose of their duty under the law. For a police officer to have admittedly given clearly contradictory statements in such an important trial is simply unacceptable. Whether or not this is going to have a significant impact on the outcome of the trial does not undervalue the importance of an intensive training for police officers who are involved in crime investigation and prosecution. . This is of particular importance in sexual-based violence cases in which corroborated evidence is difficult to collect because of the privacy of the crime. Even when they have to undergo irritating interrogative techniques during cross-examinations, police officers, who regularly have to testify in court, must be prepared for such techniques. Precision and coherence of statements are paramount for the prosecution’s case.
by ibakarr | Jun 12, 2014 | Blog
In August 2013, the Sierra Leone Police arrested 18 personnel of the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF) on suspicion that they were planning mutiny against the Government of Sierra Leone.
The personnel, including Private Momoh Kargbo, Warrant Officer Frederick Johnson, Private Abdulai Coker Suma, Corporal Momoh Conteh, Private Alpha Mansaray, Corporal Alex Jibao Koroma, Private Mustapha Quee, Private Kellie Kamara, Private Musa Fabai, Private Bobor Rogers, and Captain Prince Sesay were detained for nearly eight months (August 10 2013 to March 2014) without arraigning them before a court to respond to any allegations against them.
Human rights groups, including the Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law (CARL) criticized the government for violating the rights of the detainees (detaining them beyond the constitutionally-mandated period of 10 days without arraigning them). The Justice Ministry gave a number of excuses for the delay in commencing their trial, including the lack of resources to fund the judicial process. CARL described the prolonged detention of the personnel as a breach of their constitutionally guaranteed rights, and urged the state to either ensure their speedy trials or release them without delay. Consequently, in March 2014, the government announced the establishment of a court martial to try 14 of the 18 personnel who had been arrested. In the absence of information regarding the whereabouts of the others, CARL pressed the government to provide more information on the four others. In April 2014, the government decided to release the four personnel.
In May, CARL released a report chronicling a number of human rights and fair trial rights issues relating to the ongoing matter. In the report, CARL drew the attention of the government to a number of violations which the accused had suffered, and the need to respect their rights as accused persons going forward.
CARL urged the government to seriously consider a compensation package for the 18 military personnel who were illegally detained, and ensure that four soldiers who were later released are reinstated in the army. CARL characterized the detention as illegal because contrary to a constitutional provision requiring the suspects to have been brought before a judge within ten days, the state failed to arraign them and in fact kept them in custody for eight months.
Consistent with the cardinal principle of presumption of innocence in common law systems, CARL urged the tribunal allow the accused to have access to their bank accounts as they were not facing charges for financial or economic crimes. CARL also pointed out that the accused are family heads and needed to take care of their children.
In light of the excessively lengthy period it had taken for the state to set up the tribunal, CARL was disappointed that the tribunal was pretty much in a stop-start mode as defence lawyers were frequently boycotting proceedings for lack of pay. CARL urged the government to honour its obligation by paying the salaries of lawyers, while at the same time urging the tribunal to ensure expeditious and fair trial. Finally, CARL opined that by dismissing an objection to his qualification and competence to preside over the proceedings, the Judge Advocate may have breached a principle of natural justice – by being a judge in his own court.
Since the report was released, a number of commendable steps have been taken by the state to respond to the issues. First, a couple of days after the report was released; the State paid the fees owed the defence team. In addition, after several previous attempts, the defence team finally succeeded in their application for the accused to have access to their bank accounts.
A few days after the report was handed down, the Judge Advocate did mention during one of the sessions that in light of the huge public interest in the matter, he would no longer entertain unnecessary delays in the proceedings. He urged everyone to be efficient.
CARL will continue to monitor the proceedings and produce regular updates.
by ibakarr | Jun 12, 2014 | Uncategorized
In spite of serious efforts to address sexual and gender-based violence across the country, there is still a high prevalence of rape, sexual penetration and physical violence against women and girls; not least Kambia, Northern Sierra Leone. In 2013, thanks to support from the U.S Government’s Global Women, Peace and Security Programme (GWPS),
the Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law (CARL) started a project aimed at promoting justice for victims and accountability for perpetrators of sexual and gender-based offences. The project also seeks to help reduce the discriminatory practices and behavior and empower women to protect their rights.
The Sierra Leone Parliament has passed a number of progressive laws aimed at protecting women and addressing the inequality gap in the country. However, implementation of those laws has been weak partly because of the absence of the required structures and weak financial support. In the Kambia District, the Family Support Unit of the Sierra Leone Police is badly understaffed and under-funded. This state of affairs has seriously undermined the unit’s ability to either respond to alleged violations in good time or investigate cases effectively. At the moment, unfortunately, there is still no resident Magistrate in the Kambia District. Some FSU personnel have told CARL that they have had to release persons accused of committing serious offences because they cannot keep them beyond the legal stipulated period of 10 days. Sadly, most of such suspects never appear when they are needed by the court.
Despite these structural challenges, there are also issues relating to lack of awareness among community members as well as limited capacity among law enforcement agencies. Since November 2013, a number of efforts have been made to promote education among local communities, empower law enforcement and justice officers, but more importantly, address the impunity gap that exists for perpetrators. To help address the impunity gap, CARL has recruited and trained a corps of community-based monitors who are helping to prevent violations through education and mediation, and where the violations allegedly occur, help victims to file complaints with the relevant state authorities.
Thanks to CARL trained community-based monitors, the culture of silence and sense of stigma associated with rape and sexual penetration is slowly declining. Through education, victims are now showing more willingness to come forward and file complaints with the police. They are also showing some resistance to attempts by perpetrators and family members to settle out of court. This partly explains why the number of reported cases has slightly increased. In Gbilleh Dixing Chiefdom, for example, there were 4 reported cases of SGBV; there were also two reported incidents in Magbema; while Madina and Masungbala recorded two and one incidents, respectively. The cases include rape, domestic violence, and maintenance.
In one of the heart rending cases, a 14-year old girl was alleged gang raped by four boys in Balensara- Samu Chiefdom. Her attackers reportedly threatened to kill her if she dared to resist. She, however, kept shouting until some community members, including a CARL-trained community monitor, intervened. They pursued the boys until they were arrested. They have been handed over to the police, investigations ongoing, while the girl is currently receiving medical treatment from the government hospital.
In short, CARL Monitors are keeping track of progress, which has helped to thwart any attempts at resolving the matter out of court.
by ibakarr | Jun 12, 2014 | Uncategorized
The government of Sierra Leone has made tremendous efforts in the last decade to correct the many lingering cracks in the criminal justice system. There has hardly been a shortage of ideas; in fact, too many recommendations have been made in the past by both local and international human and civil rights organisations, including
the Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law (CARL-SL), for a review of Sierra Leone’s criminal justice system. Despite these recommendations, serious challenges persist. The justice system is still afflicted with multiple challenges. The judiciary may be generally independent, but perceived government influence and occasional corruption remain the sore thumbs in the justice system, and are perhaps two of the most grueling challenges it faces.
There are still the perennial problems of inadequate funding, perceived political interference, too many adjournments and bottlenecks in trial proceedings, leading to a huge backlog of cases, and accused detained for an unconscionable amount of time. The ramifications of these setbacks are most considerably felt by the Prisons department.
Prisons and police cells are in dire conditions, namely, food, safe drinking water, hygienic and medical facilities are irregular either in terms of supply or quality. Prison guards are poorly paid, and there have been allegations that some take bribes from family members to be allowed to see their incarcerated relatives. The 1960 Prisons Ordinance Act still allows corporal punishment, with up to 36 lashes permitted by law. The prisons are alarmingly overcrowded; a case in point is that the Pademba Road Maximum Security Prison for example, built in 1914, to house just over 300 inmates, now actually has over 1,500 prisoners.
Sierra Leone still needs to address issues relating to arbitrary arrests and prolonged detention. There are reports of inmates at the Pademba Road prisons who have spent an inordinate amount of time (some have been there for at least three years), or have spent years without appearing before a judge partly because their files have “fallen through the cracks”. the cracks. Once their files fall through the cracks, they are never brought before a court, which means they will be there endlessly. Worse still, all of such victims cannot afford a lawyer to represent them. Ultimately, such defendants have no opportunity for a trial, and they continue to suffer in prison cells sometimes for inconsequential offences or disputes, which could have been otherwise resolved by the police or other traditional dispute settlement mechanisms. Remand prisoners and pretrial detainees are also reportedly held alongside convicted criminals.
The administration of juvenile justice and living conditions in juvenile detention facilities are just as problematic. Here, inadequate staffing, dilapidated structures, the lack of adequate medical care and serious educational or skills training facilities are some of the most prominent challenges. This state of affairs in the prisons and juvenile detention facilities departs from both national legislation and international standards, such as stipulated in the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules), and the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juvenile Deprived of their Liberty.
The prisons may have their fair share of the snags affecting the justice sector, such as inadequate funding and scant logistical support, but clearly, addressing some of the human rights related issues confronting the prisons, including the prolonged detention of persons, have nothing to do with funding. Again, these shortcomings could have serious implications for Sierra Leone’s human rights credentials.
These gaps in our punitive mechanisms explain why we still face challenges in guaranteeing protection of basic human rights and freedoms. The government must start addressing human rights concerns in the prisons, as well as curbing the problem of recidivism (re-offending) to prevent our prisons from becoming a domain for cyclical criminals. Generally, this would create a chance for our justice system to incorporate international best practices in our prison services.
In view of the above, the Correctional Services Bill aims to improve on the present facilities of all detention centers and change them to correctional service centers so that detainees are able to acquire skills useful for their reintegration into society. If this is to be had, there will definitely be the need to relocate the maximum security prisons, and improve on other correctional service centers across the country.
It is important the government is able pull together all efforts to address the serious human rights challenges facing the prisons, particularly the need to dispose of cases of prolonged detainees – those detainees whose files have fallen through the cracks. This is consistent with ongoing efforts by the state and its development partners, including the DFID-funded Access to Security and Justice Programme.
Prisons should serve their fundamental role of reforming and preparing offenders for re-integration into society, while keeping them in secure and civilized environments. Similarly, the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill makes provision for alternative sentencing and community service. If this bill is passed into law and is effectively implemented, it should be able to reduce the number of inmates in prisons.This could as well be a stride towards reducing the number of prisoners who die in detention.
Arguably, the underfunding of the prisons and the short supply of logistics, coupled with overcrowding, are in many ways responsible for the poor services rendered by prison officers at the detriment of detainees. There is therefore an overarching need for government to consider increasing funding to the prisons department, which is often the least funded unlike the Judiciary and Police, which receive the lion’s share of funds allocated to the justice sector.
In conclusion, a combination of effective implementation and an increased funding by government to the prisons would be a good shoulder for the prisons department to climb. For our justice system to match international standards, vigorous and genuine efforts should be made to improve efficiency and effectiveness of the system so that justice and the enjoyment of basic freedoms does not become the luxury of only the privileged in society.
by ibakarr | Jun 12, 2014 | Uncategorized
It is exactly two years since the Sierra Leone Parliament passed the Legal Aid Law that seeks to address the justice needs of indigent (poor) Sierra Leoneans. Following the enactment, the Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law (CARL) and other human rights groups welcomed the law, and described it as “progressive” and “innovative”. However,
CARL also warned that a smooth and effective implementation of the law would require a coordinated and well-resourced implementation schedule developed jointly by the government and its partners. Quite naturally, the government is expected to take the lead on rolling out the implementation strategy by providing resources and coordinating local efforts. Unfortunately, progress towards implementation has been generally slow.
There is high level of poverty in Sierra Leone, which means that there will be huge demands on the legal aid board, and invariably the legal aid scheme will be a very expensive project. This perhaps explains why implementation has been somewhat slow. In fairness to the Justice Sector Coordinating Office (JSCO), a government-funded unit which has been coordinating the implementation efforts, there have been significant efforts to work with non-state actors to build a strong coalition for implementation. Thanks to such efforts, a few noticeable steps have been taken towards implementation:
First, members of the Legal Aid Board have been appointed and the Chair was recently approved by Parliament. The Attorney-General and Minister of Justice has asked the JSCO to support the Board until it is fully established. In addition, a full Board meeting has been convened, where sub-committees were set up to work on various issues. Before the composition of the Board, JSCO worked with a number of non-government organisations to develop some tools for the board, including a mapping report and a communication strategy. Two sub-committees, including the Human Resource Committee and Budget and Implementation Planning, have been set up and meeting already started. These recent efforts somewhat indicate a measure of willingness by the government to support a fully functioning legal aid board. The Board now has a responsibility and an opportunity to build on the current foundation and make legal aid a reality for millions of indigent Sierra Leoneans.
Nonetheless, the Board faces immense challenges, and a great deal of efforts would be required to overcome them. In the immediate future, the Board would need to focus on addressing the logistical and funding gaps. It is still not clear whether any financial allocation was made in the 2014 budget for the operations of the Legal Aid Board. The Ministry of Justice might need to either submit a supplementary budget to parliament for approval or slice its meagre budget to support the board; at least for the rest of this year. Government funding will definitely be available at some point, but it won’t be adequate to run a fully functioning legal aid scheme. The Board will need a lot more than government-approved funds to implement its strategy.
Raising funds for its operations seems to be one of the natural functions of the current board, which is why it is important that they hire an Executive Secretary with a proven record of fundraising and programme management. A good fundraiser and programme manager would help the board tap into local and international funding opportunities in ways that would make the scheme increasingly less dependent on state funds. For now, though, the government must be willing to take the lead in providing funds. Any further delays would only reinforce public suspicion that government’s commitment is weak.
The board members should understand that public expectation of what they can deliver is massive. The Board, therefore, has the unenviable task of managing public expectation so that the scheme’s performance, legitimacy and credibility do not come into question even before it starts work. It is also important that the Board embarks on a deliberate effort of establishing itself as an independent unit capable of delivering a legal aid scheme without excessive dependence on state actors. Excessive dependence on the state, particularly for professional direction, could undermine public confidence in the scheme.
There is genuine public expectation that the legal aid board will ultimately deliver on its mandate, even if most people understand that it will take a while before the board becomes fully functioning. What is important, though, is for the Board to make strong efforts to respond to the numerous challenges it faces at the moment. One of the ways of doing this is to be able to prioritize its interventions based on genuine need and the available resources. Another way is to ensure that the Board is transparent and accountable in the way it administers the scheme and how funds are utilized. To the extent that it can do these on a consistent basis, there can only be huge prospects for success.
Effective implementation of the legal aid law is important not merely because the law says so; there is genuine need for it across the country. At the moment, there are hundreds of inmates in various prisons and detention facilities across the country without access to legal advice or representation. Many attribute the overcrowding at the maximum security prison in Freetown to inability of inmates to pay for legal services. To make it worse, access to lawyers outside Freetown, in particular, remains a major challenge. There are credible reports of private practitioners either refusing or showing little commitment to represent persons who face serious offences such as murder. The major reason being the paltry amount of remuneration the state provides to such lawyers. The Legal Aid Act was promulgated to provide solutions to such problems.
In conclusion, indigent Sierra Leoneans have waited enough and they can’t wait much longer for justice. It is important that the Legal Aid Board does not slow down any more, and that the government provides the much needed resources to support the work of the board. Any further delays in providing the required resources would further raise questions about the state’s commitment to responding to the justice needs of poor citizens, who have suffered enough in a system that hardly protects the poor.
Ibrahim Tommy is the Executive Director of the Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law (CARL)
