by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
We always hear about the rights of democracy, but the major responsibility of it is participation”. Wynton Marsalis
Sierra Leoneans turned out in large numbers across the country’s 14 electoral districts last November to elect their President, parliamentarians, councillors, and mayors. The elections were generally peaceful, in part because there was little doubt that the country’s economic and development aspirations could be bolstered by credible, transparent and non-violent elections. The results showed, in many respects, that Sierra Leoneans wanted meaningful changes both in their lives and in the way the country is governed. There were personnel changes in all but one of the four categories of elections – the Presidential. The changes in parliament and councils were striking: of the 124 parliamentarians that were elected in 2007, only 42 of them were re-elected. These include 23 members of the ruling All Peoples Congress and 13 representatives of the Sierra Leone Peoples’ Party. Only half of the Paramount Chief Representatives in parliament were re-elected.
Nearly four months after exercising our right to make changes in various governing bodies, however, Sierra Leoneans are slowly resigning to the all too familiar fate that their power to make meaningful changes in the administration of local councils is limited. The limitations are caused in part by the Local Government Act 2004 and the somewhat unchanging disposition of local council administrators towards critical governance issues as transparency, accountability and citizens’ participation. Participation in governance could take the form of voting or contesting elections; one could also participate in meetings convened by Ward Development Committees or participate in developing annual development plans. There is hardly any doubt that the greater the participation levels in communities, the more likely local council policies, decisions and actions will support local needs and objectives.
A synopsis of current situation in Sierra Leone:
A Local Government Act was promulgated in 2004 as part of efforts to create platforms and opportunities for residents to directly participate in developing initiatives for community empowerment and development. It was hoped that increased public participation could spur greater transparency from the councils and contribute to the community development agenda. In truth, each of the 19 Local Councils and the Ministry of Local Government have generally under-performed since 2004, even if in varying degrees, to create an enabling atmosphere for genuine community participation in the administration of councils. There’s urgent need to address this gap. Part of the solution could lie in depoliticizing representation at the local level. Where elections are conducted on the basis of individual strength and merit, it is more likely to advance competent representation rather than the current system that tends to elevate party loyalists to serious positions, regardless of their ability or level of competence. In the course of implementing an OSIWA-funded project in 2011, many participants at community outreach events complained that a majority of Ward Development Committee members were either selected on the basis of their political affiliations or through botched elections organized by councillors. The Ward Development Committees essentially seemed to lack legitimacy in the eyes of the people. This partly explained why the number of participants at Ward Committee meetings was increasingly dwindling all the time. The few Ward Committees that remained functional hardly received support from the councils. It was quite shocking to have heard that some councillors reportedly concocted minutes of Ward Committee meetings, if only to claim monthly allowances from councils. Ultimately, many council administrators became distrustful of reports submitted by councillors, and rightly so. Additionally, it was clearly evident from discussions at community and media outreach events that councillors and council principals were at loggerheads over just about everything – including the process of awarding development project contracts, revenue generation and utilization, among others. In all of this, the perennial losers are the people. They have been deprived of the opportunity to genuinely participate in the planning and monitoring development activities in their communities. Some of these challenges could be addressed by amending the Local Government Act 2004 to ensure that roles are properly defined and representation in councils is based not on party politics.
To further help address the participation gap that currently exists, there is also a need to review the Local Government Act 2004 to make provision for direct financial support to councillors and Ward Committee members. The current arrangement is at best unfeasible. Genuine participation at the local government level starts with effective, legitimate, and well-resourced Ward Development Committees. It is important to underline the point that only councillors participate in council meetings. Members of the public can only observe, if they choose to attend such meetings. Their views, concerns and recommendations can only be heard during Ward Committee meetings. Those views are expected to be presented by their respective councillors during council meetings. Theoretically, community development projects are expected to reflect the outcomes of those meetings. In the absence of regular and effective meetings at ward level, it is difficult to see how local voices can impact community development projects. At the moment, Ward Committees are not functioning effectively. Part of the reason is that the incentive or motivation is pretty much absent. Community people and their Ward Committee members have painful experiences of total neglect by councils. This does not inspire them – it weakens their enthusiasm and spirit of volunteerism.
It is also worth mentioning that Ward Committee members do not get any stipend or remuneration for their time and services. They are simply volunteers. The councillors receive a paltry sum of money as monthly allowance. In many instances, however, the allowances are not regularly paid. During a recent consultative conference organized by CARL and its partners, various councillors complained that Le50,000 (approximately $11) is slashed from the paltry Le250,000 (approximately $58) monthly stipend they receive as mandatory contributions to their respective political parties. That is simply scandalous and unacceptable. I recommend that the Ministry of Local Government and other relevant state institutions intervene to stop this blatant extortion. This is part of the reason I think the future of effective and competent representation at local government level lies in completely removing party politics from local governance.
There seems to be a representation and participation crisis at the local level that needs immediate attention. The good news is that there have been elections for Ward Committees in most or all of the Wards in the Western Urban District, and CARL has been quite involved with monitoring the process. The elections were generally transparent and a positive departure from the selective nature of previous ones. It gives me hope that with increased support from council administrators, this could help engender interest and participation in governance issues at the local level. There seems to be a general lack of enthusiasm, however, to participate in Ward Committees probably because of the many years of broken promises by councils and the unrewarding nature of the voluntary services provided by Ward Committee members.
How can some of these challenges be addressed? It’s time to scale up support for our councillors and Ward Committees. To help strengthen Ward Development Committees, there’s need to ensure competent representation through transparent and credible elections. The Ministry of Local Government should also take its supervisory and facilitation role much more seriously than it has since 2004. Additionally, councillors and Ward Committee members should be given more resources to facilitate interaction between them and their communities. Ward Committee members should also receive stipends for their useful contributions to their communities. Once they are incentivized, they could be resourceful in terms of tax collection. For some of these recommendations to work, there is an obvious need to amend the Local Government Act 2004.
As part of efforts to plug the participation and transparency gap in local government, thanks to ongoing support from OSIWA, CARL and its partners will recruit and train at least 10 community-based monitors each in six districts to help monitor the level of compliance or otherwise with transparency provisions in the Local Government Act 2004. CARL and its partners will also help local councils develop communication strategies as well as encourage transparent elections for Ward Committees. We will provide basic training and guidelines that will help them do their work better. The challenges are certainly huge, but addressing the participation gap in local government is certainly not beyond our reach. It’s time to do it!
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
On January 26th, CARL and Action Aid-SL hosted a National Conference on Addressing Socio- Economic Justice Through Effective Public Resource Management in Bo, Southern Sierra Leone.. Various members of local government and civil society gathered to develop practical solutions to serious challenges of development and resource management. Many productive solutions were generated, however, one notion has presented itself as the most urgent and striking. Thus, the most critical finding of the conference has been the need for increased citizen participation in public resource management.
An informed and participatory public is essential to good and responsible governance. Without diligent civil society and active citizenry, mechanisms of transparency and accountability are weak and likely to fail. As public information is restricted and discretion is left to a select few, opportunities for corruption and misappropriation are exponentially increased. Regardless of age, gender and socio-economic background, all people of Sierra Leone deserve to have their voices heard equally. A bottom up approach to development will yield far better results for the nation than the current top down methodology.
For too long, the needs of marginalized groups have been neglected by the government. And for too long, self-proclaimed elites and greedy foreigners have been enjoying more than their fair share of Sierra Leone’s wealth. Despite the fact that this land has been blessed with an abundance of natural resources, the country continues to suffer in poverty, still struggling to provide basic social services to the citizens of the country. It is time that the citizens of Sierra Leone take back control of what is rightfully theirs and begin to benefit from the wealth of their land. It is time that citizens demand responsible public resource management and opportunities for involvement. This process must first begin with demands for legitimate knowledge in an effective and relevant manner. Civil society and local government are tools meant to be utilized by the people for communication and education, as well as to agitate and advocate on their behalf.
We at CARL urgently call for the following actions in regards to public participation in resource management, increased transparency and accountability in governance:
Accountability and honesty must become a part of everyday life, as it affects all people in a society, not just those of authority. It is important to instill these principles in the youth of the nation in order to create a responsible citizenry for the future. By practicing accountability in the home, school and workplace, a true attitudinal change towards corruption and accountability may occur.
All governmental and non-governmental stakeholders in public resource management must account for their activities. Those who handle public funds and goods must be able to clearly articulate the ways in which they are being used. Through the creation and maintenance of public notice boards, particularly at the local level, institutions may demonstrate their dedication to efficient and honest work in an easily accessible fashion.
Aforementioned institutions should also be able to produce documentation on accountability policies and practices upon request. Official policy statements ensure that actors stay true to their values in both word and deed. Official documentation protects institutions and the public by giving clear and objective standards for dealing with conflict. It goes without saying that a Freedom of Information law is a critical requirement for citizens to be able to fully utilize such documents.
In 2012, Sierra Leone received a score of 39 out of 100 on the Open Budget Index. This score indicates that minimal information has been provided to the public, in effect, limiting public participation. We call for an improvement of this score through the timely publication of eight key annual budget documents, including, the pre-budget statement, mid year review and citizen’s budget. The present deliberate restriction of budget information has created a breeding ground for corruption.
Opportunities must be provided for citizen participation in budget creation. We call for legitimate venues for public opinion to be heard, such as the allowance for public testimonies during budget hearings.
Lastly, it is necessary to reestablish roles of landowners, paramount chiefs and central government in public resource management. CSOs and local government must advocate for the protection of resources. Protective measures must be put in place in order for Sierra Leone to begin enjoying the wealth of the land.
It is our hope that the implementation of these recommendations leads to responsible public resource management and true socio-economic justice. As always, our mission at CARL is to improve governance through transparency and accountability. However, this mission will not be accomplished without widespread public participation and support. Communication and cooperation between citizens and institutions will be necessary in order to assert demands for public information and involvement. Immediate action must be taken in this matter before more opportunities slip away and additional resources go to waste.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
The case of the State V Abass Chernor Bundu is a case that has brought to the spotlight the unnecessary delays experienced in court when dealing especially with matters with obvious or apparent political tinge. Mr. Abass Chernor Bundu served as Secretary General of ECOWAS and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the then National Provisional Ruling Council that toppled APC led government in 1992. He was charged on seven counts of Larceny contrary to section 17 of the Larceny Act, 1916 and conspiracy to defraud the state of Sierra Leone for his alleged role in the sale of Sierra Leonean passports to nationals of Hong Kong way back in 1995 and 1996. He was arraigned before Magistrate Komba Kamanda of Court No. 2 in the capital Freetown on the 14th of April, 2012. This matter had been brought to court during the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP)-led administration by former President Ahmed Tejan Kabbah. The matter was later on discharged.
When the matter was re-opened last year, many viewed it as a political witch hunt by the current administration to discourage him from engaging in any political activity in the just concluded multi-tier elections. That’s just rumour, of course, but the prosecution has had a very long time to present the evidence it has against the accused. Unfortunately, it’s been ten months since Dr. Abass Bundu was arraigned and there’s been no significant progress in the matter. Only one prosecution witness has testified so far. If the prosecution does not have strong evidence against the accused, the normal thing is to do right by the accused and file a motion to discharge the matter. The Magistrate has a huge role to play as well. He can ask the prosecution to wrap up his case or make a ruling based on what he has before him; Of course, after giving the defence a chance to respond to whatever is before the court. CARL believes that all the parties to a trial have a responsibility to their clients to expedite judicial proceedings, but where the Judge or Magistrate thinks that one of the parties is “playing games” with the court, we submit that the court must do the right thing by the accused or the complainant.
Others have argued, and rightly so, that a discharge is not a bar to future prosecution. Since the accused was arraigned on the 14th April 2012, little or no progress has been made. The prosecution, represented by Principal State Counsel Gerald Soyei, has applied for adjournments for five consecutive times, mostly on less than compelling reasons. The defence, led by Sulaiman Banja Tejan-sei Esq, has expressed disappointment at the snail pace of the trial.
Even after the 2012 elections, which in the view of many, prompted the re-opening of the case, it is rumoured that that the prosecution is dragging its feet on the matter to keep it in court for as long as it is politically – perhaps not judicially necessary. In the last proceeding, the prosecution came to court and continued from where the court left off: by applying an adjournment only to seek further instructions from the Attorney General. The matter was adjourned to March 27, 2013. Does the prosecution, which clearly understands the importance of expeditious trial, need nine weeks to seek instructions from the Attorney General and Minister of Justice?
Even though the accused has been released on bail, it is very clear that keeping the matter in court for almost one year has affected his businesses, family and other related activities.
It is time for the justice system, and it is important to stress that the head of the Law Officers Department is also the Minister of Justice, to continue to clean up its not-so endearing public image, preserve its stature, respect, independence and demonstrate regard for the rule of law. The accused should, according to the rule of law, be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Justice delayed is not only justice denied, it is the rule of the law undermined. It is critical that the Prosecution begins to treat the matter with utmost seriousness, by bringing forward the pieces of evidence it claims to have against the accused.
There are many reasons for undue delays in trials in Sierra Leone, and CARL has identified the frequent and the sometimes totally unnecessary grounds of application for adjournments. It is in the interest of justice, for the prosecution to be given adequate time to present its case. Of course, it is equally important for the defence to be able to respond to the prosecution’s case. The court must, however, balance these compelling demands of procedural law with the defendant’s right to fair and expeditious trial. Of course, the Sierra Leone judiciary faces numerous logistics and personnel challenges, but it must begin to address these challenges.
Undue delays erode public confidence in the justice system, and potentially creates a culture of violence. It is but proper that matters are being tried in the best interest of all and sundry and within a reasonable time frame. In order to continue on the path of sustainable reforms, justice must be accessible to everyone, regardless of their political, economic or sexual orientation.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
In March, the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) of Sierra Leone organized a three-day national dialogue forum to pick the brains of Sierra Leoneans on how to strengthen ongoing efforts to curb corruption in the country. The conference was also aimed at reviewing the current strategies – identifying what works and what does not – as well as identifying areas and targets for reforms. The key objectives of the forum, according to a communiqué issued at the end of the conference, included:
– To recognize the benefits of a multiplicity of players in the fight against corruption.
– To assess the role and participation of civil society organizations in the fight against corruption in Sierra Leone.
– To build an alliance and act collectively with the private sector in confronting corporate corruption.
– To build state capacity, integrity and trust in the government.
For three days, government officials, journalists, representatives of political parties, members of the international community, traditional leaders and civil society activists came together to infuse fresh air of verve and perspective into the ACC’s blueprint for combating corruption in the country. The sessions were as interesting as they were sometimes sobering as ACC officials and ordinary citizens alike freely identified the challenges the anti-graft institution faces in its efforts at fostering accountability for economic and financial crimes.
The clearest message that came out of the conference was that while the ACC has made some progress in its efforts at combating corruption in the country, significant challenges persist. Some of the key recommendations proffered by participants included the need for the ACC to scale up its oversight responsibility in the award and execution of public contracts, the need for civil society to step up support in combating corruption, and the need to strengthen the judiciary in ways that would insulate it from any political/executive interference, which would ultimately restore public confidence in the system. This article seeks to underline the need to strengthen judicial integrity in Sierra Leone in ways that would not only enhance the integrity of judicial processes, but also the integrity of the personnel in the justice sector.
I recognize the tremendous efforts the judiciary is making to foster justice and accountability in Sierra Leone. Even as we recognize those efforts, it is worth reminding ourselves of the persisting challenges that confront the justice system. No one can deny that the Sierra Leone judiciary needs serious attention, which it is not getting adequately. Actually, until recently, the justice system was in such a bad state that only a handful of people considered it a useful institution of justice. In fact, it became the last resort for seeking justice. That perception may have changed, but only slightly.
Judicial integrity basically refers to all the logistics and competence needed by judges in carrying out their functions, such as attractive conditions of service, regular training programmes, qualified support staff, merit-based promotion system, among others. It is critical to keep in mind that the judiciary is the public institution that bears the responsibility to provide critical checks on other institutions, including the private sector. A strong, independent and well-resourced judicial system is critical to the success of national accountability initiatives, including anti-corruption efforts. A judiciary that lacks integrity means also that the legal and institutional mechanism established to combat corruption generally will be weakened. Consequently, there is absolute need to strengthen judicial integrity through increased accountability of judges to the people, and the development of objective ways of ridding the judicial service of personnel who show less commitment to the values of judicial integrity. Of course, all of these would help restore public trust in the justice system.
However, judicial integrity cannot be enhanced without corresponding efforts to improve judicial capacity. At the moment, Sierra Leone’s justice system faces enormous challenges, including inadequate personnel, poor conditions of service, undue delays in trials, few training opportunities for judges, less than transparent, merit-based criteria for promotion, perceived political/executive control of the judiciary, among others. All these have conspired to weaken public confidence in the justice system. It would be a miracle for the judiciary to recapture it if these issues are not addressed. For the purposes of this article, and in light of the relationship between judicial integrity and ongoing efforts at combating corruption in the country, I wish to focus on two key issues – capacity building and conditions of service for judges.
The future of anti-corruption efforts in Sierra Leone rests not only on well-functioning, preventive systems, but a judicial system, staffed with trained and motivated Judges, that is a willing partner in the crusade. While the ACC now has prosecutorial powers, it certainly needs an impartial arbiter to complement its efforts. Undoubtedly, Sierra Leone is blessed with some of the most educated and highly experienced judges you can find in the sub-region. Even so, I am sure the Judges would be the first to admit that regular training courses would do them a world of good.
Our Judges do not get many training opportunities, and they have had to rely purely on the experience of their colleagues or individual efforts to adjudicate complex legal matters. Training courses, whether organized locally or externally, would help them learn how, for instance, Judges in similar systems adjudicate complicated legal issues that may have limited jurisprudence at the national level. It would also help them learn from others who are certainly more passionate and experienced in adjudicating economic and financial crime cases, for instance. Anti-corruption trials are a relatively new phenomenon in Sierra Leone, and it is going to require some efforts, including exchange programmes and seminars for judges, before our justice system begins to match toe to toe all the demands of fostering accountability for corruption.
In addition to capacity building needs, efforts must also be made to provide very attractive conditions of service for judges. This is not just about paying competitive salaries, it also includes providing a conducive work environment, trained and qualified support staff, as well as attractive travel and entertainment allowances. Some of these recommendations might sound ridiculous, but they are not. Take a moment to think about this: Judges are barred from undertaking any business ventures, or reverting to barrister or soliciting services; they cannot take up other appointments, except at educational institutions. Even as we set such limitations on them, they are expected to uphold the highest standard of integrity. This sounds extremely contradictory, given the not-so-attractive conditions of service of our judges.
To whom much is given, they say, much is expected. Judges have a responsibility to maintain the highest standard of integrity and professionalism. To help them do so, there must be regular performance assessments. At the moment, I am not sure how often such assessments take place, if any at all. The performance of judges must be assessed – even if annually – and the outcome of such assessments should determine their promotion or otherwise. All of these would help foster judicial accountability in Sierra Leone.
My information is that there are only 16 Judges in Sierra Leone. While many lawyers meet the criteria for becoming Judges, the traction to private practice is not only irresistible, it also makes a lot of sense, professionally and financially. Judges are only human, after all. To keep turning blind eyes on their conditions of service in the hope that they will never fall prey to the temptations of corrupt elements in society is too much of a risk to take. There is an even more compelling reason to make the bench attractive: we need the best and most experienced lawyers there – rather than a type of safety net career for those who cannot cut it in private practice either because they are patently weak or lazy.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
The 2004 Local Government Act was passed in Sierra Leone principally to promote locally-led development initiatives – in ways that would enhance transparent and accountable governance machinery – in a post-conflict country that desperately needed to undo the country’s unproductive development architecture. It was also part of a genuine effort to shed the outdated, pre-war top-bottom development paradigm for a bottom-top approach that would create a genuine space for ordinary people to take leadership in designing the blueprint for community development programmes. I have often argued that part of the reason for the plethora of failed development policies in Sierra Leone is that the people have been perpetually squeezed into the wrong position of the development vehicle – the back seat. The time for people to take the driving seat is long overdue, but there is a new opportunity that needs to be seized. Until the people are empowered and given the space to freely contribute and take leadership of development, Sierra Leone’s development debacle will be a recurring chapter.
Eight years after the Local Government Act was passed, Local Councils are still struggling to bring about one of its intended effects, which is to give local citizens ownership over development programmes in their communities. Local councils and the Ministry of Local Government have generally failed to meet their unconditional obligations under Articles 107 and 108 of the LGA to ensure transparency and public participation in the administration of the councils. However, if citizens are given platforms and opportunities to directly engage Local Council officials, they have the ability to spur greater transparency from the councils and give their input into the community development agenda In truth, each of the 19 Local Councils in the country has had some chance in the last eight years to demonstrate a good measure of commitment to the values of inclusive development: participation and transparency. Unfortunately, most of them have disappointed.
In 2010, the Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA) provided funds to a coalition of civil society organizations, including the Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law (CARL), to help close the implementation gap in Sections 107 and 108 of the Local Government Act. By the end of 2012, the project was able to achieve some practical results, including the construction of some notice boards by various councils. The coalition also succeeded in generating passionate discussion at community level about the level of commitment or lack of it by council officials to implementing key provisions of the Local Government Act 2004. In fact, many communities were surprised to have learnt that councils were under an unconditional obligation to erect notice boards and update them on regular basis. In communities where Ward Development Committees were not meeting regularly or had never held any meetings, some remarkable changes were noticed. Thanks in part to the massive awareness and intense public debate about the councils commitment to transparent and accountable leadership or lack of it, some incumbent candidates for mayoral, chairman and councillorship positions were voted out during the primaries for the 2013 general elections.
Those modest achievements were inspiring, but the work is by no means finished yet. On the flipside, during the coalition’s monitoring activities last year in the Western Area, Northern, Southern, and Eastern regions of the country, monitors received inordinate amount of complaints from local residents about continued lack of transparency in the Local Councils’ activities and budgets. Many community members said they did not know that a law existed that obligates councils to inform them about its activities. We also found out that councilors and Ward Committees hardly organised meetings in their wards to get community members’ input into community development plans. Many community members did not even know their councilors or Ward Committee members.
Thanks to additional funds from OSIWA, the Centre for Accountability and its partners (including CDHR, Kenema, CampVO, Bo), will continue working on initiatives aimed promoting transparency and citizens participation in six districts across the country. This year’s project essentially seeks to increase local government transparency and citizens’ participation in the administration of Local Councils by developing mechanisms of permanent and regular communication between Local Councilors and their citizens. It also seeks to ensure that citizens can have accountability mechanisms to which they can turn if Local Councils mismanage community resources or fail to implement development plans that reflect citizen input and community needs.
The 2011 Auditor-General has been published, and it portrays an embarrassing picture of the level of mismanagement and lack of accountability in the public sector, including local councils. While the government grapples with a befitting response to the stomach-turning findings in that report, it is time for local council officials to begin afresh by demonstrating commitment to transparent leadership as well as create the platform for the participation of all. Public participation helps minimize corruption in the public sector, perhaps the biggest threat to Sierra Leone’s economic development aspirations. The World Bank estimates that developing countries of the world lose no less than $40 billion annually to the scourge called corruption”. Part of the reason for the rising incidence of corruption is the lack of safeguards against corruption in revenue generation and utilization mechanisms, limited public participation in budget development, and hardly any commitment to public access to information. This has been pretty much the story of Sierra Leone, and of many councils. The ‘new’ councils have an opportunity to take lead – to right the wrongs of the past – and to put the people firmly in the driving seat of development. That way, Sierra Leone can easily begin to crawl its way out of the enormous development challenges that confront the nation into a truly buoyant and prosperous democracy.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
Children in Sierra Leone suffered immeasurably during the armed conflict that engulfed the country from 1991 to 2002. They were forced into assuming ‘dual identities’’ of both victim and perpetrator. Children witnessed the perpetration of violations during the armed conflict and, in turn, perpetrated appalling human rights violations against others. Consequently, the end of the war in Sierra Leone saw the prevalence of orphaned, abandoned, unaccompanied and separated children, which has resulted in the dramatic rise in the number of street children in the country. Thousands more live with their families but spend a large portion of their time on the streets. Life on the streets has led to children being engaged in other forms of destructive hehaviour, such as drug abuse, prostitution, criminal activity and confrontation with law enforcement officials.
In Sierra Leone, the laws relating to the definition of a child are significantly inconsistent. There is no uniform age of majority throughout the country. According to Cap 31 ( Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act) of the Laws of Sierra Leone 1960, for example, a child is defined as being ‘a person under the age of sixteen years’. The ordinance which Regulate the infliction of corporal punishment defines a child as aged 15 years or below.’ “Child’’ any ‘young person’’ or ‘a person who is fourteen years of age or upwards and under the age of seventeen years’’. Notwithstanding the distinction, the minimum age of criminal responsibility for juvenile offenders in Sierra Leon is, according to common law, ten years. According to the ‘‘Beijing Rules’’, juvenile is defined as ‘a child or young person who, under the respective legal systems, may be dealt with for an offence in a manner which is different from an adult.’ There is no age criterion contained here. The Child Rights Acts 2007 however, defines a child as being ‘every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.’ The Beijing Rules nonetheless provides that states should establish ‘a minimum age below which children shall be presumed not to have the capacity to infringe the penal law.’ In line with this, the Beijing Rules provide that the minimum age of criminal responsibility ‘shall not be fixed to age level, bearing in mind the facts of emotional, mental and intellectual maturity’ of the offender.
Juvenile justice from a common perspective is essentially associated with children and young persons in conflict with the law. That is to say, it touches on the way and manner in which justice is rendered to juvenile offenders, considering the weight of their unlawful conduct and their special circumstances. International standards use the terms ‘juvenile justice systems’’ to refer to the treatment of the children accused or convicted for breaching the law, whether in justice systems specifically for children or in justice systems that deal with adults as well.
When a juvenile offender, after understanding the content of the charges brought against him/her, enters a plea of ‘guilty’; or, where the court is satisfied that the offence has satisfactorily been established, section 24 of Cap 44 of the Laws of Sierra Leone 1960 indicates that the penalty of imprisonment does not apply if he is below 14 years of age. And, to those between 14 to 17 years of age, it applies only when other methods of dealing with the offender are manifestly inadequate.
This provision in Cap 44 is flagrantly being abused in Eastern Sierra Leone. Juvenile offenders are often imprisoned not after having exhausted all other possibilities. To make matter worse, they are most times held in maximum security prisons and police detention centers with adult convicts as there are no Remand Homes and Approved Schools for child offenders. Moreover, the probation officers who are charged with the responsibility of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of juvenile offenders against abuse and neglect are somewhat disinterested or unwilling to follow up on such matters.
In trying juvenile offenders within the limits of Chapter 44 and other related laws, it is expected that the basic consideration of the courts shall be to protect, preserve, and promote the rights of the juvenile offenders in relation to the charges against them and based on their personal circumstances. Worthy of note is that ‘juvenile justice shall be conceived as an integral part of the national development process of each country within the comprehensive framework of social justice for all juveniles’.
Rules 5/17 of The Beijing Rules state that the juvenile justice system must emphasize the wellbeing of the juvenile and ensure that any reaction to juvenile offenders is always in proportion to the circumstances of both the offender and the offence. Article 40(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) says that states should recognize the rights of every child accused of a criminal offence to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child’s sense of dignity and worth, taking into account the child’s age and the desirability of promoting the child’s reintegration and assumption of a constructive role in society. Chapter 44 of The Laws of Sierra Leone 1960 expressly states what the Magistrate Courts adjudicating juvenile-related matters should do. When a child or young person is in conflict with the law, the Act provides for such offender to be place under the care of a probation officer as a first step. Where this is not possible, the offender is then sent to a Remand Home, except where the offender holds himself out to be of bad behavior during trial.
However, the absence of Approved Schools and Remand Homes in all the three districts of Eastern Sierra Leone has greatly affected the proper and effective administration of juvenile justice there. When the court in Kenema, after hearing juvenile cases, acts in conformity with Article 14(4) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) by handing over offenders to the Probation Officer because of the lack of Remand Homes in entire region, the officers take the children to the police station and keep them in usually very insanitary police cells. The fact that these kids are made to share the same cells with adults certainly increases the possibility of recidivism.
International standards set out some guiding principles relating to juvenile justice. These are found on the duty of the state to secure the best interest of each child and the corresponding duty to ensure that measures affecting children who have broken the law are proportional to the gravity of the offence and take into consideration the personal circumstance of the juvenile.
With the increase in child trafficking, it is important that systems that safeguard the rights of the child are constantly improved upon. We must remember that these children are going to be charged with the responsibility of administering the nation tomorrow. Therefore, a primary consideration in all actions concerning them, including those undertaken by the courts of law, administrative or legislative bodies must be in the best interests of the child.
Page 10 of 16« First«...89101112...»Last »
