by ibakarr | Jan 10, 2014 | Uncategorized
On behalf of the Board and Management of the Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law (CARL), I wish to thank everyone, including donors and implementing partners across the country, for their invaluable contributions to our work over the last twelve months. Without your support, guidance and ever increasing willingness to share, CARL would not have made the progress it made in 2013. It was by no means an easy year, but the organisation was able to achieve some of its critical benchmarks for the year. This year’s experience will be useful in coordinating our efforts at meeting CARL’s institutional and programming goals for 2014. The challenges of 2013 have only made us even more determined to work harder and collaborate better.
It has been a generally productive year for us in many respects. First, CARL was able to expand its geographical reach by opening an additional office in Kambia District, Northern Sierra Leone, thanks to support from the US Government’s Office of the Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Issues (S/GWI). Through this grant, we hope to reach at least one million five hundred people (directly and indirectly) while at the same time recruiting and training 42 Court and Community-based monitors in the Kambia District. The project essentially seeks to ensure that law enforcement and justice institutions as well as community members play an active role in reducing violence against women and girls. CARL also made strong efforts to expand its network by working with new partners and strengthening its ties with the existing ones. Accordingly, CARL entered into partnership and sub-grant agreements with a number of organisations in Bo, Kenema, Koinadugu, Makeni and Moyamba to help implement projects aimed at promoting transparency and citizens’ participation in local government. Some of our partners include the Centre for Democracy and Human Rights in the North, Gender Awareness Programme in Moyamba District, Human Empowerment and Development Foundation in Bo, and Movement for Restoration and Rural Development in Kenema District. At the regional and global levels, CARL partnered with a number of organisations to promote justice at local and international levels. In particular, CARL is pleased to have partnered with Civitas Maxima to institute an action against Ibrahim Bah or Balde, a former ally of ex-Liberian President, Charles Taylor for his alleged role in the conflict in Sierra Leone. Although the Sierra Leone Government helped Bah escape justice by ordering expulsion, our action was part of efforts to help foster accountability and justice for victims of the conflict in Sierra Leone.
Additionally, CARL made some progress in its fundraising efforts. Without doubt, funding is absolutely critical to the survival of every civil society organisation, especially for organisations like ours. In 2013, the management and staff of CARL stepped up fund-raising efforts. I am pleased to thank the staff and board members of all our donor organisations, including the US Government’s Office of the Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Issues (S/GWI) and the National Endowment for Democracy. Traditional donors such as TROCAIRE, OSIWA and FGHR were extremely helpful not only through their financial support, but their ongoing technical support has had tremendous impact on our institutional and programming objectives. The increase in the organisation’s funding level means that our services will reach many more Sierra Leoneans, but more importantly, we can plan on a long term basis. There are a few more critical issues that CARL would like to focus on, which is why the organisation will continue to seek funds as well as make efforts to recruit some of the best and committed personnel available.
In terms of project, some of our key projects include “Promoting Transparency and Citizens’ Participation in Local Government”, “Enhancing Access to Justice”, “Reducing Gender and Sexual-based Violence”, among others. These projects are implemented in nine of the country’s 14 districts either directly by CARL staff or through some of the organisation’s sub-grantees. These projects have been implemented with the aid of community-based monitors who have been exceptionally committed to promoting accountability for sexual and gender-based crimes and transparency in governance. CARL’s 120 community-based volunteers across the country have done an incredibly brilliant job of extending our services and presence in over 50 villages and towns across the country. Through these monitors, CARL helped in fostering accountability for sexual and gender-based crimes by helping victims to come forward and file complaints with the Family Support Unit of the police. These monitors also helped and continue to help vulnerable groups, including women and girls, to get fair and equitable decisions in the Local Courts. They also contributed to efforts at changing the negative traditional attitude by men against women.
CARL’s advocacy project – spoken and written – also covered most of the country. Through our flagship publication – The Monitor – CARL shared observations of Court Monitors and Outreach Officers with public officials and members of the public. CARL undertook extensive discussions on emerging opportunities and challenges in the country, particularly those relating to justice and accountability. Through our media and community outreach events, we were able to raise awareness on various legal and human rights issues, while at the same time teaching communities about their role in holding their leaders accountable. Our court monitoring work received a boost this year when the organisation’s monitoring report sheet was reviewed by one of the several interns we worked with in 2013, thanks to our partnership with ACIPP. The review ensured that our current template captures a lot more useful data which helps our analysis.
We also undertook massive advocacy in order to enhance access to justice, particularly for vulnerable groups. At the moment, there are serious physical and financial problems relating to access to the justice. Apart from the fact that court buildings and Family Support Unit posts are sparsely located in the country, there is a dearth of lawyers, members of the bench and law officers across the country. There are still too many circuit courts for justice to be delivered in a timely manner. Plus, the fact that poor litigants must cover long distances to testify or pay transportation fare for witnesses is inhibiting many citizens from accessing justice. CARL has repeatedly called on the Sierra Leone Government to increase funding to the justice system, particularly the judiciary, in order to address the personnel and logistics challenges that confront the institution. There are indications of progress as the judiciary is likely to receive more funds in the 2014 budget than in previous years. Of course, the judiciary still faces challenges that are quite unrelated to funding shortfalls. First, the judiciary still faces an increasing public perception gap regarding its independence. Many think the institution has lost its independence to the politicians and private interests. For instance, the judiciary needs to better in developing a case management system. The current method doesn’t allow for predictability in terms of allocation of files. This contributes to the perception gap that exists. Members of the bench also need to do a lot more to inspire public confidence. Most complaints against the judiciary relate to the alleged unfair handling of politically-motivated disputes. Money can help recruit more personnel and address the institution’s logistics related challenges, but integrity cannot be procured and installed like a computer software. When the integrity of law enforcement and justice officers is constantly in question, it raises serious doubts about that country’s justice and human rights credentials. The Sierra Leone judiciary needs to do a lot more in this respect. CARL will continue to advocate for a more transparent and accountable justice system in 2014.
Closing the implementation gap in our laws remains one of the country’s major challenges. Sierra Leone has passed some of the most progressive laws aimed at addressing discrimination against women as well as protecting vulnerable sections of the population, including the youth. Unfortunately, implementation remains a key challenge. In the last six years alone, Parliament has passed the four “Gender Laws”, namely, the Domestic Violence Act, the Devolution of Estates Act, the Registration of Customary Marriage and Divorce Act, and the Sexual Offences Act. It also enacted the Legal Aid law in 2012, aimed at enhancing access to justice for indigent Sierra Leoneans. Our parliament also repealed the 1963 Local Courts Act and passed a rather progressive Local Courts Act in 2011. While CARL has repeatedly commended the promulgation of these laws, it is regrettable that implementation is still ineffective. Apart from the fact that there are still no functional Safe Houses for victims of domestic violence in the entire country, victims of sexual violence are reportedly still being asked to pay fees for medical reports, contrary to the Domestic Violence Act 2007. The Legal Aid Act was hailed as one of the most progressive laws on the continent when it was passed in 2012, but a Legal Aid Board has still not been inaugurated by the President. No funds have been set aside for the operations of the Board. CARL is committed to working with government officials, international partners and civil society organisations to address these challenges in 2014.
In light of the increasing spate of police brutality against civilians, including alleged unlawful killings, CARL played a critical role in calling for increased accountability for police officers. Thankfully, there is a gradual but recognizable effort on the part of the leadership of the Sierra Leone Police to foster accountability for police officers who commit serious human rights abuses. At the moment, there are at least three police officers facing charges relating to unlawful killing. Sadly, many more police officers are still being shielded from facing justice. The leadership of the Sierra Leone Police must show greater commitment to combating impunity within the force. CARL will continue to press for reforms and increased accountability in the police force.
Looking ahead…
The experiences of 2013 will certainly inform our efforts and strategies in 2014. CARL will step up its partnership with civil society and other partners to play a meaningful role in the constitutional review process. CARL will continue advocacy for increased access to justice for victims of sexual violence and for the need to strengthen accountability mechanisms across all levels. Through a police accountability project that CARL intends to start in 2014, we will monitor complaints against police officers to see how the current internal accountability mechanism of the Sierra Leone Police handles them. Sierra Leone’s anti-corruption efforts received a setback when the Board of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) failed to reselect Sierra Leone for a compact award because the country failed MCC’s corruption indicator in 2013. It was a huge blow because the country missed out on potentially one of the biggest, if not the biggest single grant that it would have ever received. This is why everyone or every institution needs to play its own part to address Sierra Leone’s biggest impediment to economic development and national prosperity – corruption. On our part, CARL will continue to monitor corruption-related cases before the courts with the view to reporting any unwholesome observations as well as providing useful commentary on court decisions. Finally, CARL intends to start an impact litigation project next year, which requires selecting and pursuing lawsuits as a tool to achieve broad and lasting effects, beyond the particular case involved, on both public policy and legislation. It is hoped that through this strategy, CARL will begin to address the implementation gap that confronts many of the country’s laws.
Once again many thanks for your support in 2013, and we look forward to working with you all in 2014. Best wishes for a productive and wonderful year ahead!
by ibakarr | Jan 10, 2014 | Uncategorized
The Right to Access Information Act, 2013 (RAI), commonly known as the Freedom of Information Law (FOI), is the legislation which allows access by the general public to data held by public officials, agents and institutions of the national government. The law allows citizens to make requests for information held by government or its agents, to be received freely or at minimal cost, subject to statutory exceptions. The law also imposes a duty on government to provide mechanisms for the public to request and obtain information from government and its agents, and to publish information and promote opennessas a fundamental value of public service.
The General Assembly of the United Nations Organization, in 1946, recognized Freedom of Information as a fundamental human right. Subsequently, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights gave international legal status to the right to access information, as enshrined in Article 19 (2) of the said document thus: “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice”.
Sierra Leone is perhaps the latest country,out of over 90 in the world, to have enacted the Right to Access Information Bill. The Bill was passed into law in the Parliament of Sierra Leone on Tuesday October 29th 2013, and received the President’s Royal Assent on 30th October 2013.The enactment of the Bill however comes with mixed fillings among citizens. It is believed that no sooner President Koroma affixed his signature to the Act, than Sierra Leone automatically became a member of the US Open Governance Partnership. Critics accordingly believe that the RAI Bill was enacted in a disguised bid for the Sierra Leone government to qualify for the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) grant, which could bring hundreds of millions of dollars in aid. Such criticism is probably prompted by the fact that the campaign for governments of Sierra Leone to enact a Freedom of Information law went on in vain for over a decade, and that the unanticipated decision of Parliament this time to finally pass it into law beautifully coincides with our government’s quest to qualify for the MCC grant. It holds true, I believe, that “it doesn’t matter whether a cat is white or black; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat”. The law has been passed anyway, and it is generally a good law.
The question that has been hastily asked by many Sierra Leoneans though is whether this can actually be reckoned as a plus to our democratic credentials; or is it just a political ruse? Being law, the Act is of course a lasting document and its practice is supposed to be permanent. However, many describe the buoyant expectations and the excitement that followed the enactment of the law as a bubble that is going to burst. This is partly because many of the country’s laws are either weakly implemented or wholly abandoned. Additionally, we have yet to see government’s seriousness about and commitment to fully implementing the law, especially with regard to sections of the Act that need to be implemented with proactive action. Early days yet, but the Government needs to appoint and train public information officers, and to develop information communication facilities and adequate technology to digitalize and systematize information for easy access.
Also, there are definitely some loopholes in the law, and as such there are manifold problems that the government has to grapple with and which will need to be overcome to enhance openness in the conduct of state affairs, or these would pose a monster-big threat to implementation in particular and in general, the success of our emerging democracy. First, most public authorities indulge in ingrained bureaucratic cultures of confidentiality and red tape, in addition to the sad fact that an awful lot of these authorities do not understand the law. In order to combat this challenge, public servants in all government institutions and at all levels of governance need to be adequately au fait with the detail of the Act, especially with regard to the exemption clauses, to avoid misuse of the said clauses and to prevent any tendency of Information Officers to reject applications on improper grounds. Information Officers in particular should be trained on the interpretation and application of the law.
Another legitimate concern is that the Act excludes or does not have legal dominion over the private sector, given that it is “…an Act to provide for the disclosure of information held by public authorities or by persons providing services for them….” In other words, rights under the Act do not guarantee access to information held by the private sector, unless it is voluntarily offered. This limitation has far-reaching ramifications. A considerable amount of government business is transacted between the public sector and private sector. Some public authorities, knowing this loophole in the law, could destroy information that has the potential to incriminate them. Although this would constitute an offence, the punitive measure stipulated in the Public Archives Act 1965 is simply a slap on the wrist. There would definitely be duplicates of information relating to such transactions in the possession of private bodies, which definitely would evade public scrutiny, even where there is imperative need for that, since private individuals or institutions cannot be forced to comply. Thus, loads of information and astronomical evidence vital for unearthing corrupt deals and transactions between the public sector and private entities would be left in the hollow of the private sector’s hands, while the originals of these records in public offices could have beenforged, destroyed, misrepresented or altered. My fears are legitimate, for the situation can get as bad as that, considering the unenviable attitude of the majority of our public servants. Also, this could just be the perfect margin of safety for graft, for this gap provides a leeway for those public officials with the tendency to defraud the state and line their personal pockets with ill-gotten wealth.
The apparent intention of Parliament in passing the RAI law, and that of H.E the President in giving it his assent, probably includes buoying up the fight against the seemingly unassailable pillage in this country. But these apertures in the law, if not tapered, have the potential to turn this intention of Parliament on its head. In this regard, government should take steps to reduce the loopholes in the law and to enhance proactive and expeditious implementation of the law in the face of the numerous challenges. Government needs to build the capacity of Information Officers, through training programmes, in handling, preserving and digitalizing information, as well as separating confidential material from information permissible for public consumption. There is need for an awareness-raising drive, as people need to be educated on their rights under the RAI law and the extent to which they can push for these rights, and this should be not only the business of government but of civil society, political parties, media organizations and all government ministries. For instance, both print and electronic media institutions need to give a supporting hand by ensuring that their members are adequately educated on their rights and limitations under the law and how these relate to the Independent Media Commission (IMC) Code of Practice, and the law on defamatory andseditious libel as stipulated in the 1965 Public Order Act, which are still operational. There is also need to review the 1965 Act to expunge or amend such anachronistic and ineffectual clauses as the provisions for the seven hundred Leones and one thousand Leones fines for ‘defamatory libel’ and ‘knowingly publishing a false defamatory libel’, respectively. This way, the 1965 Act could serve as a serious check on the tendency of some over-adventurous media practitioners, relying on the FOI Act, to wantonly publish defamatory material and to infringe on individuals’ privacy, a case that has yet to be seriously addressed by any government of this country without prejudice.
Further, there are too many categories of information that have been exempted by the Act from disclosure to the public. It is of course reasonable enough to have the Act prohibit disclosure that has the potential to compromise national security. Yet these exemptions must be further clarified and specified to prevent unscrupulous public authorities from using the exemption clauses as a cloak for fraud. Worse still, some officials can be hostile or simply dismissive, or may give lame excuses in a bid to evade compliance. Moreover, the fear of persecution has made nobody’s business what is supposed to be everybody’s business. Many believe that it would be foolhardy to report bureaucratic impropriety without any legal support or protection. Such tendencies couldbe forestalled by complementary legislation or a speedy amendment of the Act, to include laws which impose rigid penalties for officers who may be found wanting for destroying or altering records, and also to protect whistleblowers and preserve their anonymity where necessary.
To sum up, it is popular opinion in this country that Sierra Leoneans have wizardry indrafting brilliant policies and laws, but that the bottom always falls out when it comes to implementation.If the citizens of this country should gain any benefit from the law on access to information, then efforts in that direction must be taken beyond mere legislation. In other words, it is not enough to merely enact the Bill and then leave it to gather moss on the shelves. It would be in the best interest of the citizens of this country and of democracy and accountability if the government should take proactive action to fully implement the law and to establish, support and maintain all structures and mechanisms necessary for the proper implementation of the law.
The free flow of information and citizens’ unimpeded access to it serve as a massive boost to the security of human rights and the drive to foster accountability, engender trust between government and citizens, promote press freedom, increase transparency, and narrow the gap between government and the people.Thus, the Right to Access Information Act 2013 may be fraught with shortcomings, yet its significance as a gloss on our democratic culture, as a ray of sunshine to efforts towards fostering accountability in governance, and as victory for participatory democracy, cannot be overstated.
by ibakarr | Jan 10, 2014 | Uncategorized
As part of efforts to strengthen existing structures and mechanisms that promote accountability and justice for victims of sexual violence, the Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law (CARL) in November 2013 conducted a two-day training session in Kambia, Northern Sierra Leone, for 42 Court and Community-based monitors. The monitors, who included about 45% women, were trained as part of the US Government’s S/GWI Global Women, Peace, and Security-funded project, which seeks, among other things, to enhance justice and accountability for sexual and gender-based crimes. The participants or beneficiaries were recruited from 12 communities in the three chiefdoms of Gbileh Dixon, Mansongbala and Magbema. They were drawn from all walks of life, and included teachers, representatives of women’s groups, and petty traders. Some of them were also past victims and perpetrators of sexual and gender-based violence who have vowed to work with state and non-state actors to address a problem that has afflicted their communities for decades.
“I am a victim of serious sexual abuse, and to date, I don’t feel like justice was done for what happened to me. I belong to a community where incidents of sexual violence occur regularly. I contributed always my energy and time to protecting women and girls in my community, and this training has been quite useful in preparing us for the challenge ahead”, said Maseray Bangura, one of the community-based monitors in Dares Salam village.
The training focused on some of the critical laws that seek to empower women as well as protect their rights, including the Domestic Violence Act, the Sexual Offences Act, the Registration of Customary Marriage Act, and the Devolution of Estates Act. The participants were urged to help law enforcement and justice institutions enforce these laws by not only raising awareness about these laws, but by also ensuring that violations were punished using established state mechanisms. The training sessions also discussed the various human rights instruments, including constitutional and treaty-based guarantees for human rights. Apart from the Sexual Offences Act, which was passed in 2012, all the other laws mentioned above were passed in 2007. More than six years after those laws were passed, implementation has been very weak. There are still issues relating to free access to a medical centre and lack of Safe Houses for victims of domestic violence, for victims of domestic violence, paucity of law enforcement and justice personnel in many rural communities, discrimination by law enforcement and justice officers, among others.
After each presentation, trainees were asked to reflect on the issues in relation to their communities. The facilitators also discussed the most common human rights challenges in their communities, especially those that were common to women. Most of the participants complained about wife battery, high levels of poverty and illiteracy among women (which in many ways inhibited their ability to participate in decision making processes as well as break the cycle of violence in which they lived), economic violence, child maintenance issues, discrimination in the hands of male traditional authorities, among others. Most participants said they had little confidence in the willingness and capacity of justice and law enforcement officers to protect their rights or expeditiously deliver justice when those rights were violated.
“Women and girls still face challenges. There is widespread early marriage and teenage pregnancy. Poverty and ineffective enforcement of the laws are some of the major reasons. I believe something can be done about it. The community, traditional leaders and law enforcement officers need to work together to bring about changes. This training has helped us understand how to build partnerships in addressing these challenges,” Mahmeh Munu of Kawola village said.
The trainees were divided into two groups, including Court Monitors and Community Monitors. The Court Monitors will cover Local Courts as well as disputes that are resolved by chiefs. Since chiefs do not have a right to convene courts, the Monitors have a responsibility to ensure that no illegal or Kangaroo courts are set up by traditional authorities. They will also ensure that Local Courts, among other things, do not exceed their jurisdiction in terms of levying fines as well as the types of cases they adjudicate. Community Monitors will undertake regular activities such as awareness raising, mediation, assisting victims to access justice, and linking communities with relevant information relating to the rights of women and girls.
As part of the project, the Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law will also organize a training of trainers event, train Law Enforcement and Justice Officers (LEJOs), as well as other groups whose contributions will be critical to the successful implementation of the project.
by ibakarr | Dec 10, 2013 | Uncategorized
The United States Government’s Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) announced in the week of November 10 that Sierra Leone’s eligibility for a compact grant funding is still under consideration until December when the country’s fate is decided. The announcement followed Sierra Leone’s less than impressive performance on MCC’s fiscal year 2014 scorecards. The statement added, “Due to the negative change in its scorecard, MCC’s Board will review the overall policy environment in Sierra Leone regarding transparency and efforts to combat corruption. This review will help inform the Board’s decision about continued compact development. To that end, MCC and the Government of Sierra Leone remain engaged in an ongoing dialogue regarding the Government of Sierra Leone’s past, current, and future efforts to promote transparency and fight corruption.”
Although Sierra Leone passed 11 out of the 20 MCC indicators, it is obvious to even the most passive observer that the MCC places extreme weight on prospective grantees’ commitment to promoting transparency and curbing corruption. Unfortunately, Sierra Leone made an embarrassing step backward in terms of combating graft during the year under review. And, in spite of what seemed like a last gasp effort to do some damage control by passing the Freedom of Information law, there is certainly a lot more that needs to be done to address the country’s biggest and ever powerful adversary – corruption.
The primary responsibility of combating graft lies with the country’s Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), pursuant to the ACC Act 2008 as amended. The powers of the Commission were enhanced by a 2008 amendment which gave the body prosecutorial powers, while at the same time increasing the number of corruption-related offences. In spite of the Commission’s best efforts, there are still serious gaps in the fight against corruption. It is time for the Sierra Leone Government, the Commission and the public to have a serious reflection on its strategy to find out the gaps. The fight is just not about the Commission. It is certainly a serious national issue that requires our collective efforts.
It is critical to point out that the ACC alone cannot win the fight against corruption. Unfortunately, and perhaps inadvertently, there seems to be a national assumption that the Commission can do a “lone ranger”, and independently defeat the most sophisticated adversary of our times – corruption. This is part of the reason the public never holds back in blaming the Commission whenever there is a report of increasing corruption in the country. Rightly or wrongly? The Commission has adopted a three-pronged strategy to deliver its mandate, including prevention, public education and prosecution. The three limbs of the strategy have not been fully implemented. Obviously, additional time is required to succeed, but Sierra Leoneans are getting increasing impatient with the slow pace of progress. Perhaps it time for the national strategy to be reviewed.
Prevention, as they say, is better than cure. This is perhaps where the ACC needs to do a lot more. The Commission’s prevention strategy needs some bolstering. The Commission started a Systems and Processes Review Project a few years ago, but progress is slow on this front. Apart from the fact that this project has not been rolled out to many state MDAs as necessary, it would seem that the commission has also been unable to effectively monitor the implementation of recommendations emanating from the reviews. For instance, the Commission led efforts to develop service charters for a number of government agencies, but there is little or no information regarding compliance or breach of these charters. An effective monitoring would enable the Commission and other relevant supervising bodies to easily spot anomalies or seepages and plug the gaps.
The Commission also needs to do better in terms of enforcing compliance regarding the declaration of assets by public officials. It is primarily the responsibility of public officials to declare their assets, but the Commission has a mandate to enforce compliance by, among other things, punishing persons who fail to declare their assets. There is little or no evidence of anyone ever being punished by the ACC for failure to declare their assets. The Commission must use it powers to enforce compliance. The fact that all assets declaration forms are treated as confidential material has still not encouraged our public officials to declare their assets. Perhaps we should review the law to change the confidential clause so that all assets declaration forms are accessible to the public. In fact, the ‘confidential’ clause, in my view, is inconsistent with the Freedom of Information law of 2013. If assets declaration forms were made accessible to all, it would have enabled the public to help monitor the assets and liabilities of public officials. What is the reason for treating assets declaration forms confidential when the essence of declaring assets is to promote transparency and accountability in governance? It is sad that some Members of Parliament (MPs) attempted to amend the assets declaration clause to provide that public officials will declare their assets only twice in their entire career – upon assuming and after leaving office. Parliamentarians have a massive role to play in combating corruption, but any attempt by them to weaken Sierra Leone’s anti-graft legislation would certainly represent a betrayal of public trust in the institution’s commitment to fight corruption.
The Commission’s public education strategy has been very successful. Thanks to the extensive public education efforts by the Commission, a significant number of Sierra Leoneans are now aware of the existence of an anti-graft commission. Public awareness and knowledge levels of the adverse effects of corruption are reasonably high. Regrettably, the high level public awareness has not necessarily translated into a reduction of corruption or public willingness to expose corrupt practices. How can the ACC address this gap? Perhaps the Commission needs to get the public to understand that it is only championing a national cause – a fight for the people of this country – and a fight against the enemies of Sierra Leone’s vast resources. When supporters of convicted corrupt officials boo ACC prosecutors (as was witnessed in the cases of the former Mayor of the Freetown City Council and the former Marine Resources Minister Haja Afsatu Kabba), it speaks volumes for how much work needs to be done to translate public awareness into support for, and collaboration with the Commission. It is also worth commending the Commission for decentralizing its outreach programme. Through its media and community outreach programme, anti-corruption messages are now reaching far-flung communities.
The scorecard of the Commission’s prosecution strategy is a mixed bag. While there has been a good number of high profile indictments, particularly in the last five years, the Commission has not been quite successful at sustaining convictions for some of those high profile cases. Even though no one expects them to score a 100% success rate, the string of setbacks the Commission has recently encountered should make every well-meaning Sierra Leonean wonder about the future of the Commission’s prosecution strategy. There are well-meaning people in the Commission, but it is doubtful whether the Commission enjoys the full complement of the resources and goodwill among public officials to fulfill its prosecutorial mandate. Perhaps the Commission needs to recruit additional personnel, including investigators and prosecutors, to support the efforts of its current work force. Equally, there are also serious issues that need to be sorted out with the judiciary. It is no secret by now that the Commissioner’s public comments about the judiciary have invariably offended officials of the judiciary. Commissioner Kamara says he enjoys a god professional relationship with the judiciary, although it is rumoured that there are serious cracks in that relations. Whatever the cause, something needs to be done about it. Some have suggested that some of the corruption-related cases that the Commission recently lost, appeared to be much easier to win than to lose. Let’s face it, a review of some of those decisions show how the elastic nature of the law was overstretched to reach a verdict one way or the other. Sometimes I wonder whether judicial activism is a threat or aid to combating corruption. The ACC has sometimes decided against filing an appeal, perhaps because there are genuinely no grounds of appeal or it does not feel inspired or confident to do so. Even where the Commission or convicted persons have appealed, it takes forever to adjudicate such cases. At the moment, there are many corruption-related cases on appeal, some dating as far back as 2011. In fairness, it is sometimes not entirely the fault of the courts, but the courts should receive a fair share of blame for undue delays in proceedings.
This should not deter the ACC. In fact, it should embolden its prosecutors because at it is, the public jury is out on the Commission – perhaps more so than ever before. Some things need to change, almost immediately. The Commission must be bold enough to continue combating graft at the highest level. The Commission should start paying more attention to those mining and agro-business deals. For example, ACC investigators should pay more attention to how contributions by large-scale businesses into Chiefdom Development Funds are utilized. It is only when corruption is significantly reduced at the highest level that the people of Sierra Leone can collectively begin to have a genuine share of the country’s vast resources.
Thanks to the MCC’s fiscal year 2014 scorecards, Sierra Leoneans have been once again reminded about how much work is still required to address Sierra Leone’s corruption conundrum. Clearly, the strategy needs serious reviewing. The fight requires genuine commitment at the highest level. Quick fixes won’t work. The crusade needs both a leadership and followership that truly understand the need to enforce transparency-related laws and regulations without external prompting; respect for the rule of law; and the voluntary declaration of assets. The campaign also requires an independent and well-resourced anti-corruption commission; just as it requires an independent judiciary that understands that judiciary activism could be useful in sending the right message to potentially corrupt public officials. To be fair to the ACC, most of these recommendations are outside its control, but it can still do better.
by ibakarr | Nov 13, 2013 | Uncategorized
Over the years especially after the 11 years conflict in Sierra Leone, there has been a miss-position of children. We see a lot of our future leaders in the street begging. Some are used as stooges by their parents or relatives. These children spend their days begging in the streets instead of being in school. Most people blame this on the destitution left behind by the eleven years civil war. This has had a huge effect on the country as a whole. The number of children in the streets is on the increase and this has contributed immensely to the soaring crime rate involving children. Most of them are used by criminals as acolytes. This is mainly because these children are left in the street to fend for themselves. They make little or no money for the day to up-keep them, hence they get involved in criminal acts such as pick- pocketing and anti-social behaviour such as joining riotous gambling clubs. When they grow older, they become depressed; join bad groups with a wanton urge to disrupt the peace and stability of the communities in which they find themselves. The number of gang violence is on the increase, which has led to the loss of lives of young people, as was the case in the Fourah Bay community in Freetown on 14th September 2013, where two young men belonging to so-called opposing cliques were butchered to death.
Some of these street children, especially girls, are exposed to sexual abuse. Men try to take advantage of them because of their present condition. As a result of this, cases of sexual penetration are on the increase as most of these street children are under-aged. These men use money to lure deprived children especially girls into having sexual intercourse with them. This exposes children to sexually transmitted infections and even teenage pregnancies, which is the reason you see ‘child-mothers’ with a child or two. These poor conditions of living are definitely not good for people we call our future leaders of this great nation.
Some of these children are either orphans, abandoned children left homeless from being denied and unattended to by their parents and relatives, who leave their children because of their economic incapability or the fear of taking full parental responsibility. People use kids as young as ten to fourteen years to do all types of hard and unhealthy Jobs. The situation is even more bizarre in the mining districts of Sierra Leone where children work day and night in mining pits. Such children are exposed to environmental hazards, bullying and other forms of abuse from elderly work mates. Others move about collecting remains of vehicle parts and iron. A lot of these children are involved in street trading putting their lives on the line.
It is clearly stated in the Child Rights Act 2007 that no one shall subject a child to exploitable labour. The biggest questions are: what is actually done to stop this? Why can some people not act according to the dictates of the law? Is there any effective means to stop this? The Child Right Act as well as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that whatever decision is taken that affects a child’s life should be done in such a way that the interests of parents, the community or the state, does not override the best interest of the child. This principle touches on every aspect of a child’s life. Regardless of this, many adults often act towards children in ways that are harmful to the child. There are often many assumptions about what is in children’s best interest that are implicit and explicit. Based on this feedback the assessment of children’s best interest must be clearly directed towards the realization of their rights and proper accountability for children’s views.
Section 90 of the Child Rights Act tells us that ” a parent or any other person who is legally liable to maintain a child or contribute towards the maintenance of a child is under a duty to supply the necessaries of health, life, basic education and reasonable shelter for the child”. This suggests that it is a legal duty on parents, rather than a social responsibility, to ensure that the basic needs of a child are met. Some parents neglect their obligations to take up responsibilities for their child or children. According to the law, a child must be properly taken care of by anyone who is legally liable to maintain a child. Unfortunately, it is ever difficult to answer in the affirmative to the question of whether legal penal action is taken against all who act contrary to this law. This is because there are children who go to bed without food or are deliberately starved by their parents or guardians, given loads of household chores and left with little or no time to study or play. Some wake up very early to execute domestic assignments before leaving for school and mostly missing the first period in school. They suffer from fatigue once they are in class and pay little attention to lessons or easily fall asleep during the lesson. Such children usually have poor educational backgrounds and mostly drop out of school.
CARL believes that there can be a turning point in the lives of Sierra Leone’s children if certain steps are taken. The Local Council by laws make provisions for protecting the rights of children. It is necessary to ensure an effective, consistent and well monitored enforcement of the said bylaws. Putting in place monitoring systems and mechanisms to check on the status of discrimination against children and pressing for positive action would yield a lot of dividend to the fight to uphold children’s rights. Let us start by increasing the number of child homes. This will cut down the rising number of children in the street. There are few private organizations helping children by providing them with shelter but they cannot give accommodation for all street or homeless children. Hence, it is a pressing need for the government to set up organizational structures whose responsibility would be to take the kids off the street and provide shelter for them or where possible, re-unite them with their families. These governmental organizations or institutions must be efficient and diligent in their duties and must be adequately funded.
Also in a bid to alleviate the appalling and harrowing conditions of children in the country CARL recommends that stringent measures be put in place to track child abuse at all levels. This can be achieved by the government instituting effective and persistent monitoring mechanisms for tracking and reporting child abuse .This is in view of the fact that too many child abuse cases go unreported and as such, unpunished. Thus, the higher the level of impunity enjoyed by offenders, the more deplorable and intractable the problem becomes. The Child Rights Act makes provision for penal measures to be taken against each and every offender of the act, but unfortunately these penalties are not being imposed. Thus, the law is not serving one of its most vital purposes as a deterrent to crime (potential offenders) as the latter only see it as a toothless bulldog.
Human rights issues should not only be limited to the court room. Measures should be put in place in order to stop people from taking advantage of others and encroaching on their civil rights. People need to be sensitized on their rights, responsibilities and limitations, as this would bring the awareness of others’ rights, especially young children, who are the most vulnerable.
