by ibakarr | Nov 4, 2013 | Uncategorized
At the request of the leadership of Kenya, the African Union on October 11-12 convened an extraordinary summit in Addis Ababa. One would have hoped, in light of the recent, terrible events on the continent, that such a summit was meant to discuss strategies for preventing another Lampedusa disaster; or how to address the serious electrical power crisis on the continent; or how to address the serious threat of terrorism to the continent. Disappointingly, the summit was not about discussing a stronger partnership to address the serious economic and political challenges confronting Africa. No! The summit was fully funded by African governments to discuss how to further widen the impunity gap on the continent. It was purely meant to consecrate an unholy plan, conceived through an alliance between the Kenyan leadership and their East African counterparts, to shield the “big men” on the continent from facing justice. It was about legitimizing the “big man – no case” tradition that has so permeated the continent for decades.
The main agenda of the summit was to persuade the 34 AU member states that have signed the Rome Statute to withdraw en masse, and weaken the powers of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in fostering accountability and justice for serious crimes on the continent. Many African leaders believe the ICC has been “targeting” the continent and its leaders unfairly. They have accused the Court of delivering selective justice as all of the Court’s current cases are in Africa. Some governments, including the Government of the Republic of Kenya, have dismissed the ICC as a neo-colonial outfit designed only to hound African leaders. In response, many have argued for the need to set up an African-based institution mandated to investigate and prosecute violations of international law.
The outcome of the Addis extraordinary Summit was a mixed bag in the sense that while Kenya and its allies couldn’t succeed in obtaining a resolution for a mass withdrawal from the Rome Statute by the 34 AU member states, some of the resolutions reached at the summit were simply not reflective of Africa’s commitment to international justice. The participants at the extraordinary summit resolved, among other things, that “to safeguard the constitutional order, stability, and integrity of member states, no charges shall be commenced or continued before any international court or tribunal against any serving AU Head of State or Government or anybody acting or entitled to act in such capacity during their term of office”. They also resolved that “the trials of President Uhuru Kenyatta and Deputy President Samoei William Ruto, who are the current serving leaders of the Republic of Kenya, should be suspended until they complete their terms of office”.
These resolutions, while extremely disappointing, were the least surprising. The primary objective of the summit, which was in some ways achieved, was to shield African leaders, present and future, from facing justice, regardless of the enormity of their offences. The first article of the resolution was deliberately couched to create a shelter of impunity not only for the existing leaders and their cronies, but for future generation of leaders. The effect of the resolutions was to reverse the increasing gains in closing the impunity gap on the continent. Unfortunately, those who assembled in Addis Ababa seemed to have ignored the feelings of the victims of the Kenyan post-election violence, and the painful memory of the 1,200 people who perished. To tell victims to wait for at least five years more before justice can be delivered is simply unreasonable. Is there any guarantee that they’ll be alive for another day or year? And, I am not sure anyone of them needed lectures on the importance of delivering justice in a timely manner.
Worse still, the outcome of the Addis Ababa summit gave the wrong signal about Africa’s increasing role in strengthening international justice, particularly in the last decade. Since the genocide in Rwanda, and the terrible events in Sierra Leone and across the continent, African leaders have shown remarkable commitment to promoting justice and accountability on the continent. Rwanda’s support to the UN for the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), the Sierra Leone Government’s cooperation with the UN to set up a special war crimes tribunal, and the fact that 34 of the 54 AU member states have signed the Rome Statute clearly underscore Africa’s commitment to international justice.
There are growing concerns, particularly by African heads of state, about the seeming uneven application of international justice across the globe. Sadly, powerful states have succeeded in shielding their citizens or allies from facing justice. The UN Security Council has unfortunately let down many victims across the world, including those in central Europe and Syria. The Court has also reportedly declined to investigate crimes allegedly committed in Venezuela and in Iraq by British soldiers. These have led to claims, particularly among African leaders, that the ICC is targeting Africa inappropriately.
The fact that the ICC and the UN Security Council have not been able to expand the reach of international justice beyond Africa doesn’t undermine its legitimacy or the relevance of its work on the continent and across the globe. Instead, it creates an unhealthy public perception about fairness or the lack of it in fostering justice for all. It certainly creates an impression that the Court’s reach is only limited to Africa. While that seems to be a good thing for victims in Africa, it certainly undermines any hope for justice by the rising number of victims in other parts of the world. The fact that many violations in other parts of the world are going unpunished is a tragedy that requires everyone’s attention. Still, it is no justification for dismissing the relevance of the Court or planning to discontinue cooperating with it. In fact, provides additional reason why Africans must work together to address these gaps. As I have often argued, the inaccessibility of justice only deepens victims’ sense of grief and increasingly reduces their capacity to reconcile with the past. This could seriously undermine national and global efforts at promoting long term peace and stability.
No disrespect meant, but I share little or no sympathy for African leaders who complain that they are being unfairly targeted by the ICC. First, I have not seen a single instance of a vexatious indictment proffered against any leader by the ICC. In fact, the Court’s Office of the Prosecutor, which is now headed by an African, must seek approval from the Court’s Trial Chamber (based on evidence presented before it) before trial commences. Second, I am completely unimpressed by the high level of hypocrisy and selfishness displayed by some African leaders. Take a moment to think about this: apart from the fact that African leaders willingly signed the Rome Statute, which created the International Criminal Court, four of the seven cases before the ICC were referred to the Court by the African leaders themselves. Two others, Liberia and Sudan, were transferred to the Court by the 15-member UN Security Council, with the full backing of the African representatives on the Council. In the case of Kenya, and not unsurprisingly, it was the failure of the Kenyan government to investigate the crimes that occurred following the post-election violence in 2008 that prompted ICC’s intervention. Both President Kenyatta and Deputy President Ruto had promised to fully cooperate with the Court, regardless of the outcome of the Kenyan election. What is happening now should make every right-thinking person ponder about their commitment to justice for Kenyan victims.
It is also worth pointing that even as African leaders complain about the ICC’s unwillingness to investigate crimes outside Africa, the United States Government has bilateral immunity agreements (BIAs) with many ICC member countries, including those in Africa, that essentially seek to protect US citizens from being handed over to the ICC. It seems to me, then, that many of these states are happy to shield US citizens from facing the ICC, but keep complaining that the Court does not go after other nationals. Simply hypocritical!
Since the ICC’s work is guided by the principle of complimentarity, which means that it is a court of last resort, and once African states demonstrate that they are able and willing to independently try allegations of serious violations of international law, the ICC would be less active on the continent. The recent decision by the ICC’s Trial Chamber in the Libyan case was victory for the principle of complimentarity. No doubt, one of the priority projects of African states should include strengthening national accountability mechanisms, including the police and the judiciary, to be able to deliver justice in a fair and transparent manner. Even so, many African states that are signatories to the Rome Statute have not domesticated the law. In order to deliver credible justice for serious violations of international law by themselves, African states that have signed the Rome Statute should domesticate the law, strengthen accountability mechanisms, and demonstrate a lot more commitment to promoting human rights. Only then shall we begin to genuinely provide a credible alternative. Otherwise, any attempt at withdrawing from the ICC or shielding leaders from facing justice by such hasty resolutions, would only serve as a deliberate effort to deepen the pain and grief suffered by victims of serious offences on the continent.
by ibakarr | Oct 4, 2013 | Uncategorized
There have been increasing reports of incidents of sexual and gender-based violence across the country. Fortunately, many of the cases reported to the police nowadays wind up in court. Unfortunately, there has been a number of snags that characterize the preliminary investigation and trial of these cases. One of the most recent and high profile cases relate to former Deputy Education Minister (II) Mahmoud Tarawallie. The alleged incident involving the former deputy minister generated intense debate among members of the public. While some have given credit to the young girl for being so brave to have spoken out and contacted the police for help, others think it was made up as part of a political witch hunt against the accused. Some of the arguments have been clearly based on errant ignorance about the elements of the offence (rape).
It is important to note that rape is a statutory crime punishable by the Sexual Offences Act 2012, and hence would be dealt with accordingly.
First of all, the Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law (CARL) would like to commend the effort of the Family Support Unit (FSU) in professionally handling the investigation of the allegations against the minister. In spite of the status of the accused, the police still pursued him. The action of the FSU shows that as far as they are concerned, no man is above the law and offenders are to be punished. We will also like to commend other human rights organizations like LAWYERS, DON BOSCO for their tremendous efforts in helping to protect the rights of the alleged victim.
During the course of CARL’s court monitoring exercise, however, Monitors observed that Section (40) of the Sexual Offences Act 2012 which states, inter alia, that special measures should be provided for vulnerable victims and witnesses, was completely ignored when the alleged victim was testifying. The Court clearly failed to provide a witness protection mechanism either by shielding the identity of the witness or asking members of the public to leave the room, among the various modes of witness protection provided by law. Was it deliberate or a genuine mistake? If it was a mistake, it was one that had potentially life-threatening consequences because CARL further observed that while giving her testimony in the full view of the public, unprintable invectives were not only hurled at her mother, but there were clear statements of threat against her person. In fact, CARL was reliably informed that had she not been whisked away to the Family Support Unit after she had finished testifying, she might have been lynched by the angry supporters of the accused. This, in our view, amounted to a clear violation of the law and of the right of the alleged victim. Following concerns expressed by some human rights organisations, including CARL, which was later picked up by the prosecuting team, the court introduced a witness protection mechanism for the other witnesses. There were also instances of flagrant violation of the law by media institutions which published the name and photographs of the alleged victim, contrary to Section 41 of the Sexual Offences Act. It states that “No person shall make information that has the effect of identifying a person who is a victim of the offence and there would be a punishment for such persons”. It is the primary responsibility of the Law Officers’ Department to bring an action against anyone who is deemed to have breached the law. Of course, private organisations or citizens can also undertake private criminal prosecutions. So far, no legal/judicial consequences have followed those alleged violations. Well, how would you address the fact that the court itself was in breach of the law? When such violations go unpunished, they do not embolden victims of sexual offences to come forward and cooperate with law enforcement and justice institutions. It also seems to create the impression that the alleged victims are the perpetrators, thus helping to shield the perpetrators from facing justice.
Another unfortunate lesson that emerged from this particular matter is the apparent negative public attitude against alleged victims of rape. It is also a fact that there is massive knowledge gap in terms of the statutory definition of rape with respect to the giving and withdrawal of consent. Section 6 of the Sexual Offences Act defines rape as an act of sexual penetration with another person without the consent of the other person. It is also important to add that consent can even be withdrawn right before or even during intercourse. Many people seem to think that consent is irreversible. Section (2) of the Act defines the circumstances in which a person does not consent to an act. Such circumstances include where the accused induces the person to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority, or where the person having consented to engage in the sexual activity expresses by words or conduct a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity, or where the person is asleep, unconscious or so affected by alcohol or another drug as to be incapable of freely consenting, etc. There are also circumstances determining whether or not a person consented. Basically, there are clear ways by which a person can say or indicate consent to a sexual act and that a person is not to be regarded as having consented just because the person did not physically resist, did not sustain physical injury, or that on an earlier occasion the person freely agreed to engage in another sexual act with that person or some other person.
Going forward, CARL would like law enforcement officers and the judiciary to put mechanisms in place to protect victims and witnesses in cases relating to sexual violence in order to avert the incident that took place during the preliminary investigation involving the former deputy Minister.
At the moment, CARL is not sure whether any professional counselling is provided to victims of rape. There is need for intense counselling before they are allowed to testify because CARL has observed that many victims of rape appear to be psychologically disturbed during their testimony, and tend to give testimonies that conflict with their statements to the police. Even during cross examination, they do not seem to recollect some vital aspects of their statement or testimony. Such apparent inconsistency plays into the hands of the defence, and in a matter where the prosecution is led by untrained police officers, as is often the case, it only helps the defence’s case.
CARL would also like to draw the attention of government to the issue of Safe Homes for victims of sexual and gender-based violence. The Domestic Violence Act 2007 provides for the establishment of Safe Homes for the protection of victims of sexual and gender-based violence across the country. Nearly six years after the law was passed, only one Safe Home has been established in Makeni. Even so, it is not functional. This is grossly unfortunate because it doesn’t help our collective efforts at combating impunity for sexual offences as victims might be reluctant to come forward and complain if they are not sure that they can be protected, especially during the investigation and prosecution of SGBV-related cases. There should be operating Safe Homes across the country that victims can reside in. In the absence or scarcity of Safe Homes, victims who need protection are left with no other option but to go back to the society and face the possibility of being abused. During the preliminary investigation of the matter relating to the former deputy minister, the alleged victim was kept in the facility of Don Bosco, a private charity based in Freetown. It would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, for her to have gone back home in light of the gravity of the matter. Once victims are allowed to return home, it could create the possibility for them to bulge under pressure from family and change their story or agree to an out-of-court settlement, thus undermining justice and accountability for such crimes. The need to establish a Safe Home is long overdue, but it is still the proper thing to do. It is absolutely needed across the country. The Ministry of Gender Affairs must back up their words with action. It is time to act!
by ibakarr | Sep 26, 2013 | Uncategorized
As the Government and people of Sierra Leone continue to grapple with the country’s development challenges, I want to make a point about how judicial independence can be enhanced by judicial accountability. The fact that the Sierra Leone judiciary faces huge challenges is obvious even to the most passive observer. These challenges need to be fixed, and it requires a sense of urgency and political will that currently do not seem to exist. Addressing these challenges would require scaling up funding to such an important arm of government, but more importantly, ensuring that its statutory independence is fully protected and respected. Judicial independence also requires that judges should not be subject to improper influence from the other branches of government or partisan interests. It also requires that an enabling environment is provided which ideally allows judges to decide cases and make rulings based on law and judicial discretion, regardless of whether decisions are politically unpopular or opposed by powerful interests.
At the moment, a good majority of Sierra Leoneans that I speak to do not believe that the judiciary is completely independent of undue private or partisan interests. This is regrettable, and does not bode well for Sierra Leone’s medium and long term peace consolidation and development aspirations. While judges are expected to negotiate salaries or conditions of service, judicial justice is a non-negotiable, priceless service and those who are statutorily required to dispense it should be allowed to do so without man-made, binding constraints. Indeed, such constraints could unduly affect the course of justice. As Dato’ Param Cumaraswamy, Former UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers said, “The worst form of injustice in any civilized society is injustice perpetrated through the judicial process”.
Judicial independence, with all its innumerable benefits, ought to be tempered with some institutional checks to ensure that judicial officers are ultimately accountable to the public. Judicial accountability is broad in scope, and ranges from establishing a credible mode of recruitment, promotions, and security of tenure for judges to maintaining an effective case management system. Additionally, even though members of the bench are not required to provide an explanation to the public for the judgments or rulings they deliver, there needs to be an effective system that supervises particularly junior members of the bench. There are some institutional structures aimed at fostering judicial accountability in Sierra Leone, but enforcement is very weak. The Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law (CARL) receives regular complaints from individuals who claim to have suffered a great deal of injustice in the criminal justice system, the Local Courts, among others. The complaints relate to delays in proceedings, blatant discriminatory conduct by Local Court officials, uneven application of discretion in the adjudication of bail applications by judges, including by imposing onerous bail conditions, and lack of public access to court documents.
Without providing details, each complaint CARL has received seems very serious, and in many ways contributes to the negative public perception of the judiciary. The judiciary, particularly the Honourable Chief Justice, has a huge task of ensuring some concrete steps are taken to help reverse the negative public perception of the judiciary. In particular, there is need for a more effective supervision of Magistrates and Judges with respect to the adjudication of bail applications. When a Magistrate approves a bail application in respect of a sacked police office facing manslaughter charges, while at the same time refusing (three consecutive times) to release a sitting Member of Parliament (MP) facing arson charges on bail, it tells you there is urgent need for some measure of consistency. And, when a Magistrate orders the detention of a person facing criminal libel charges and the decision is overturned right away by those at the top for incomprehensible reasons, while at the same time allowing journalists (the latest being Jonathan Leigh) to be detained for similar charges, it certainly speaks volumes about the degree of mistrust that exists among the public insofar as the judiciary is concerned. When a senior official in the judiciary tells a group of journalists that their colleague should “go down” so that he will start writing good stories when “he comes out”, it tells you that accused persons seem to be pre-judged even by people who hold responsible positions well before trial actually commences. There are instances of Magistrates/Judges imposing exceptionally onerous bail conditions which deprive accused persons their right to bail. CARL has been reliably informed that the passport of Dr. Abass Bundu (a senior member of the opposition SLPP) was seized nearly two years ago, thus preventing him from traveling. Meanwhile, the prosecution has not presented a single witness, and the court has still not discharged the matter. This is not helpful for our justice and rule of law credentials.
Our judicial officers require a more effective supervision? Whoever is reviewing bail conditions or fines should be sure that the rights of all accused are respected? How much guidance are the young members of the bench receiving? How do even senior members of the bench resist attempts by politicians and private persons to unduly influence their decisions?
This leads me to another significant pillar of judicial accountability – training for members of the bench. The judiciary is one of the least funded government departments in Sierra Leone. In 2013, it received less than 1% of the annual national budget. The security sector alone received about 16% of the budget for the same year. This obviously makes mockery of the conventional wisdom that security and justice are interrelated. Limited funding to the judiciary undermines access to justice and hampers the ability of the judiciary to sponsor training sessions for members of the bench. While judicial independence is a critical pillar of democracy, the courts have a responsibility to protect it by discharging their functions with the highest degree of professionalism and knowledge. One of the ways to ensure this is to expose them to regular training sessions. The leadership of the judiciary needs to make training for judicial officers a priority going forward. There is also need to continue working on improving the salaries, terms and conditions of service of members of the bench.
Judicial accountability and independence reinforce each other in the sense that if the statutorily guaranteed independence of the judiciary is not handled responsibly, it could prompt appeals from the public for such wide latitude of independence and discretion to be subjected to external checks or control. And that could be dangerous. The judiciary can and must fix its own problems, and the Chief Justice can rely on the good will of many Sierra Leoneans to give her the required support. We can’t afford to continue ignoring these monumental problems. This is the time to do it!
by ibakarr | Sep 26, 2013 | Blog
There have been increasing reports of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) lately. Hardly a day passes by without reading or hearing about alleged sexual and gender-based violence, including rape, sexual penetration and battery. There have even been some chilling reports of children as young as four being sexually abused. It is hard to put a finger on why reports of SGBV incident rising, in spite of the several efforts, including state and non-state interventions, to combat the scourge across the country.
Since 2007, a number of laws have been passed aimed at enhancing and protecting the rights of women and girls in Sierra Leone. Some of the laws include the three gender laws of 2007, which seek to protect the rights of Sierra Leonean women, combat discrimination against women, and ultimately enhance their socio-political status. The Child Rights Act, which seeks to promote the rights of children consistent with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, was also passed in 2007. Also in 2012, the Sexual Offences Act was promulgated with the view to providing increased protection for women against sexual violence as well as advance accountability for perpetrators.
To help roll out these laws, the Ministry of Social Welfare Gender and Children’s Affairs has also produced a number of blueprints for the implementation of the laws. Additionally, the Sierra Leone Government has established the Family Support Unit (FSU) to help provide the required response to domestic violence, including rape, wife battery and maintenance issues. In spite of these efforts, there are still grave concerns about the serious risks women face across all levels.
The flurry of media reports about sexual and gender-based violence, which recently prompted a protest march by some female journalists and human rights groups, can be viewed in one of two ways: either victims of rape and other forms of sexual and gender-based violence are now more willing than before to file complaints, or the reports reflect an increasing spate of sexual penetration and other sexual gender-based violence within the country.
In 2011, for example, there were 1,596 cases of sexual and gender-based violence cases reported in the Western Area; 1,273 in the Southern Province, and 967 in Bombali District, according to statistics compiled by the Family Support Unit. In 2012, there was a reported increase in incidents of sexual and gender-based violence in most parts of the country. The number of reported incidents in the Western Area amounted to 3,182; it was 1,253, in the Southern Province; 1,660 in the north, and 1,115 in the east. Although the official figures for 2013 have not been released, anecdotal reports suggest that SBBV-related incidents for 2013 will exceed the reported figures for 2011 and 2012.
While speaking at the commemoration of the Day of the African Child 2013, the Director of Children’s Affairs at the Ministry of Social Welfare said her Department had received over 100 complaints relating to sexual and gender-related cases for the month of May 2013 alone. During the strategic launch of the roll out plan for the implementation of the Sexual Offences Act organized by Campaign for Good Governance, Principal State Counsel, Monfred Sesay, said the Law Officers Department had received over 1,000 (one thousand) files relating to sexual and gender-related cases for advice on how to proffer charges.
These reports do not seem to reflect positively on the efforts of state and non-state actors to combat or reduce incidents of SGBV. If, however, the increase in complaints is as a result of the efforts by all to get victims to come out and file complaints, then it shows that those efforts are yielding positive dividends. If, on the other hand, it is a reflection of the fact that incidents of sexual and gender-based violence are on the increase, then it means that some additional efforts are required. This means that every stakeholder, including the government and NGOs, needs to sit up straight and rethink our strategies.
Some things need to happen right away:
First, the government needs to increase its funding to support gender-related initiatives. Contrariwise, only less than a percent of the 2013 national budget was allocated to the Ministry of Social Welfare, Gender and Children’s Affairs. This, unfortunately, does not match up with the government’s publicly stated commitment to promoting the right of women and girls. A lot more funding is required to make sure girls are kept in school, social amenities are provided in schools, and women and girls have access to family planning and procedures.
There is also massive need to increase the number of (FSU) posts across the country, because so many violations still go unreported and unpunished. The Government needs to take the lead by not only sending the right message, but to also back up its messages with real actions, including adequate funding and training of personnel of the support services.
There is also need for Government and civil society to foster more collaborative action in order to address this problem.
Law enforcement officers have to play a key role as well. There is also need to invest in the judiciary, ensuring that there are many more Magistrates and Judges to cover the entire country. The fact that the judiciary is still running in a circuit system does not help in promoting accountability for victims of sexual and gender-based violence. Victims may feel that they are being deprived of justice, if they cannot get access to the courts when they need the services the most. Witness and victim protection mechanisms are also weak.
Sexual and gender-based violence is a national issue, and if half of our girls are not going to school or are dropping out of school because of sexual penetration and other related abuses, it could have serious implications for efforts at empowering women. The state can prevent the crisis by making sure that law enforcement officers and the justice institutions are bolstered, public information services are equipped, and additional support is provided to the Ministry of Social Welfare Gender and Children’s Affairs.
It is time to end the talking! It is time to back our words with action. The President has continuously repeated his government’s commitment to promoting the rights of women and creating a space that gives equal opportunities to girls and boys. What is needed is a strategic approach that includes scaling up funding to the Social Welfare Ministry as well as the institutions that protect the rights of boys and girls.
by ibakarr | Apr 1, 2011 | Uncategorized
On March 8 each year, governments and people over all the world get together to celebrate the International Women’s Day. The day is set aside every year to reflect on the progress the world has made in terms of addressing the perennial challenges women face on a daily basis. It should also provide an opportunity for state and non-state actors to review the agenda, reshape the strategies and come up with more practical ways of addressing impediments to addressing gender imbalances that exist, as well as the serious violations that women suffer. Sierra Leone is among the countries that have declared March 8 a public holiday, clearly recognizing the need to fully reflect on the strategies that have been adopted to champion the cause of women. Sierra Leone’s theme for the 2014 celebration is ‘Inspiring Change for Women and Girls’ Participation, Advancement and Prosperity’.
On behalf of the Center for Accountability and Rule of Law-Sierra Leone (CARL-SL), let me congratulate my female compatriots and women all over the world for being able to participate in this year’s celebrations. Happy International Women’s Day!!
Even as we celebrate, it is important to continue to have serious reflections on how far we have come and how much more needs to be done going forward. Sierra Leonean women have a long history of deprivation, marginalization, and being on the wrong end of abuses and violations that generally go unpunished.
Prior to the 11 years civil conflict that ended in 2002, Sierra Leonean women suffered an indescribable depth of marginalization; they were largely excluded from decision-making processes, which accounted and still accounts for the huge income inequality that exists between women and men. This has invariably created serious imbalances in the relationship between men and women, with the latter generally relying on men for sustenance. This, in some ways, makes it harder for women to break the cycle of violence they live in. This undermines their ability to assert their reproductive and sexual rights and challenge gender inequality. Girls continue to suffer harmful traditional practices.
During the civil war, women primarily bore the brunt of the conflict as they were used as sex slaves, cooks and combatants. They were repeatedly and brutally raped, forced to fight, and in some cases, forced to take the lives of their own children and relatives.
At the end of the conflict, and in light of the tragic experiences of women, efforts have been made by the Sierra Leone Government to address the perennial and emerging challenges facing women. It was part of this effort that a number of laws commonly known as the gender laws were passed between 2007 and 2012. These include, the Domestic Violence Act 2007, which seeks to protect the lives of women against all forms of violence; the Sexual Offences Act 2012, being an act to protect women and girls from any form of sexual abuse, which includes rape, sexual penetration, and harassment; the Devolution of Estates Act 2007, and the Registration of Customary Marriage and Divorce Act 2007. Collectively, these laws partially demonstrate the government’s commitment to protect the rights of women, address the gender imbalances that have afflicted the country before, during and after the war. It is also worth recognizing the fact that there has been some progress in terms of female representation in appointive positions, as women hold key positions in government. There has also been significant public goodwill to help address these challenges. There is an appreciable increase in the number of men who are now willing to help protect the rights of women. In the Bombali and Kambia Districts, for example, CARL is working with a network of community-based monitors – both men and women – who have devoted their time and resources to enhancing justice for victims of sexual and gender-based violence by supporting personnel of the Sierra Leone Police’s Family Support Unit to bring perpetrators to justice.
While these reforms and initiatives are commendable, they do not go far enough to address the underlying causes of the enormous challenges that women face. For instance, women are still grossly under-represented in governance and other decision-making processes. Of the 112 Parliamentarians, for instance, there are not more than 15 female members. In terms of cabinet positions, there are only two full time female ministers in the current administration. Generally, there is a disproportionate representation of women in all spheres of governance. Sierra Leone faces high poverty and illiteracy levels, and women are the worst affected in all senses. Sierra Leonean women are still way poorer than their male compatriots in part because they have been traditionally denied access to social and economic opportunities. The fact that until recently, a significant majority of families in the provinces had to make a choice between sending girls or boys to schools, with girls mostly being on the wrong end of the decisions, should help explain why addressing the inequality gap would require a bold affirmative action. To make a bad matter worse, women’s paid labour is for the most part undervalued. There are also traditional practices that do not help, as most of these practices tend to give preference to men. Girls drop out of school owing to difficulty in accessing educational facilities and opportunities. In some communities, for example, children have to walk for as long as 4 miles to access the nearest primary or secondary school, and unfortunately, most girls fall prey to abusive motor cycle riders who get to impregnate them before reaching or completing high school. This has brought about a significant reduction in the number of girls, from the provinces in particular, who access university. In the sciences, women are not doing well. The number of male students who pursue science courses far outweighs that of their female colleagues, in spite of the fact that the government offers full scholarships to all female students pursuing science courses.
The theme for this year’s celebration is “Inspiring Change for Women and Girls’ Participation, Advancement and Prosperity’. To truly inspire change, the Sierra Leone Government and its partners need to address these underlying challenges that have collectively hindered efforts at addressing the challenges that women and girls face. There is no way we can inspire a realistic, positive, and practical change without ensuring that we keep girls in schools and universities, and encourage them to acquire livelihood skills to empower themselves economically. There is simply no way we can inspire change for girls and women’s participation if the poverty and illiteracy levels among women and girls remain the same; there is no way we can inspire genuine change if the number of women in parliament keeps dwindling; and certainly inspiring a sustainable and meaningful change needs a committed leadership. It’s time for Sierra Leone’s leaders to lead by example. That would include increasing the number of women in the cabinet, supporting the minimum 30% female representation bill, addressing the bitter experiences of female street hawkers by working with local councils to build market places for them, and investing in primary and secondary education to make education affordable, accessible and meaningful. Addressing gender and sexual-based violence is clearly work in progress, but the government needs to double up its investment in both the investigations department of the police as well as the judiciary. Increased investment in the justice system is clearly one of the ways we can begin to address the implementation gap in the country’s gender laws. Here is why or how significant funding could help address some of these challenges: The Domestic Violence Act, for example, provides for the establishment of safe homes across the four regions of the country, but nearly seven years since the law was passed, there is no functioning Safe House across the country. The Family Support Unit is ineffective not only because it does not cover most parts of the country, it still faces serious logistics and capacity issues. Most women who are deprived of their right to access land and property do not have an accessible and affordable justice mechanism to turn to. That is truly sad!
Until these underlying factors are addressed, Sierra Leone can celebrate all it likes, but these moments of reflection will continue to ponder the exact issues every single year.
It is important to remember that the hopes, dreams and aspirations of millions of women and girls rest on the decisions and policies we make every day, but more importantly, on the practical actions and meaningful intervention that we make through their lives.
Long live the Women of Sierra Leone! Long live International Women‘s Day!!
