A state that prizes itself as a paragon of democracy and the rule of law is a state that boasts of a judiciary of undoubtable integrity. In other words, the judiciary is the greatest bastion of democracy and the rule of law, given that it is the mainstay against violations of the rights and freedoms of all citizens. Also, the level of trust and confidence that the average citizen has in a country’s justice system often translates into an almost equal amount of trust in the government of the day.
It is for these reasons that the judiciary of Sierra Leone should not be treated as one of the government’s small potatoes, especially in terms of national budget allocation.
Many believe that the myriad of problems challenging Sierra Leone’s judiciary can be pinned on the scant budgetary allocation to the judiciary. The national budget distribution over the past four years (2010-2013) shows a steady, but moderate increase in government’s funding to the judiciary, which is a good omen for a positive transformation some day of our justice system. The total development budgetary allocation to the judiciary for the fiscal year 2013 accounts for less than 1% of the total national budget. Where the judiciary receives less than one per cent of the total national budget, it raises a legitimate concern that this might create an impediment to access to justice. Now, the inevitable question: Is money the only missing ingredient needed to give the judiciary of Sierra Leone the perfectionist and hair-splitting temperament that it should have?
One can definitely make a strong case that poor funding allocation to the judiciary could undermine its effectiveness, since a financially impoverished judiciary may be more malleable to political interference. However, it is worth noting that a lot more is required to strengthen the judiciary and improve its image, including judicial integrity and independence, which money cannot buy. In other words, the perceived lack of independence and integrity in the justice system can be separated entirely from the challenges that come with a funding shortfall.
It is safe to assert that improving the structural and human resource capacity of the judiciary relies hugely on adequate funding. For instance, with the growing population and expansion of particularly urban centres, there is need to have more courtrooms around the country, particularly in the provinces. But if we want to send more magistrates to the provinces, they have to be well paid; they have to have good housing facilities and internet connectivity; and they have to be paid relocation allowances. There is need to set up systems; to have Public Address systems in most of our court buildings to alleviate the difficulty in hearing what judges, lawyers, or witnesses say during proceedings in almost all the courts in the country, especially in Freetown. There is need to now have stenographers to help judges and magistrates in taking and compiling notes during trials so as to expedite proceedings. Having one man – the judge or magistrate, with all due respect to their wisdom – taking down notes and compiling judgement is often cumbersome and poses a threat to much needed efficiency. In the provinces particularly, court buildings and structures within them are in a state of disrepair, and there is dire need for well-equipped libraries for judges to conduct research.
Secondly, there are far less than enough State Counsel in the provinces, with for example, only one State Counsel in the entire Southern region. This is closely linked with the fact that not all districts have Magistrate Courts, and often we have had to rely on the circuit system, which also contributes to the delay in delivering justice in the provinces. The sad result has often been too many out-of-court settlements, especially in sexual and gender-based violence cases, a situation which itself has had an awkward impact on efforts at promoting justice and accountability.
Another point that must not escape mention is that the government of Sierra Leone spends an awful lot of money training lawyers, most of whom it easily loses to private practice for want of attractive conditions in government legal departments. We believe that it is advisable for the government to institute a system whereby we have lawyers, particularly those who are trained on Government Grants-In-Aid, work for the government for at least one year upon graduation from the Law School. This gives the state the opportunity to tap from the talents it has helped to develop. In addition, we might also want to extend pupilage for new graduates of the Law School beyond merely working with senior practitioners in their chambers in Freetown, to include having them work with and understudy provincial magistrates, as well as having pupil lawyers work as research assistants to help judges with their work in the libraries. It is believed that this will add tints of colour to what is currently perceived by many as the plain image of the judiciary on one hand, and help a lot more in giving our young and upcoming legal practitioners a true feel of the task that lies ahead on the other hand.
All said and done, government should do all in its power to make the bench attractive, by for example increasing salaries and making the working environment in government legal departments more conducive in a bid to attract the very best in terms of excellence and expertise.
The other – perhaps more consequential and more material – side of the argument is that apart from increased funding to the justice sector, delivering fair and credible judgement is what we need to protect the image of not only the judiciary but also the law profession as a whole. This view cannot be far removed from the view held in the 2013 Budget Speech of the Minister of Finance and Economic Development, Hon. Dr. Kaifala Marrah that: “government…considers an effective judiciary as necessary for the delivery of equal justice to all citizens”. In recognition of this, the state should ensure that there is no room for doubting the credibility of the bench. Of course, ensuring the integrity of the judiciary is separable from, and not contingent upon, an increased funding to the justice sector. Much of the success of the judiciary depends on the wisdom and moral rectitude of judges and magistrates; and ensuring that these are not ethically compromised is not quite the business of the state financier. Rather, it is a combination of individual self-esteem, strength of good character and a bit of state superintendence.
In the best interest of this nation’s justice system, and for the sake of upholding judicial integrity, it is recommended that the government establish and sustain transparency mechanisms and enhance citizen’s access to justice. This can be achieved through technical assistance projects through which government can develop feasible standards of professional conduct for judicial personnel. CARL also recommends the development and effective administration of a case management system that ensures that cases are assigned to judges and magistrates in a transparent pattern as one of the ways to avoid the tendency for compromise as well as to bolster judicial integrity, impartiality and independence. There is also need to facilitate a workable mechanism that supports the judiciary in identifying and bringing to bear best practices in strengthening the capacity of the judiciary as well as the integrity of judges and state counsel.
In a nutshell, a further increase in budget allocation to the judiciary to more than 1% is a much needed boost for improving structural and human resource capacity of our justice system, whereas improving the trust and confidence of the populace in the judiciary largely depends on judicial integrity and independence.