by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
The right to a fair trial as a norm of international human rights law is designed to protect individuals from the excesses of law enforcement agencies during the trial process. This right is firmly guaranteed under Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which provides that “everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law”. The fundamental importance of this right is illustrated not only by the extensive body of interpretation it has generated but, most recently, by a proposal to include it as a non-derogable right, amongst others. Thus, the right to a fair trial is applicable to both the determination of the individual’s rights and duties in a suit at law and with respect to the determination of any criminal charge against him/her.
The standards against which a trial is to be assessed in terms of fairness are numerous, complex and constantly evolving. They may constitute binding obligations that are included in human rights treaties to which the state is a party. But, they may also be found in documents which, though not formally binding, can be taken to express the direction in which the law is evolving.
The right to a fair trial in a civil or criminal charge is considered to start not “only upon the formal lodging of a charge but rather on the date on which state activities substantially affect the situation of the person concerned”. This most times coincides with the moment of arrest or serving of summon, depending on the circumstances of the case. Fair trial guarantees must be protected from the moment the investigationagainst the accused commences, and throughout the preceedings, including when any appeal has been completed.
However, fair trial guarantees in northern Sierra Leone faces several challenges. The Local Courts Act, 1963 which establishes the court to look into cases of “customary law”, and customary law to mean “any rule, other than a rule of general law, having the force of law in any chiefdom of the provinces whereby right and correlative duties have been acquired or imposed which is applicable in any particular case and conforms with natural justice and equity…” are hardly being complied with during the adjudication of disputes insofar as it relates to fair trial rights protection.
The Act provides that court hearings and judgments should be conducted publicly except in a limited number of circumstances. It states specifically that “the room or place in which a local court sits shall be an open or public court to which members of the public may have access so long as they shall be of good behaviour and so far as it may conveniently contain them”. It means that the general public has a right to be present, to know how justice is administered. The practical realities, however, contradict this provision. There are several instances where court sessions have been held behind closed doors for reasons not guaranteed under law; and the outcomes have left more questions than answers. Most controversial decisions are usually handed down in camera.
The right to trial within a reasonable time is another fair trial guarantee of major importance. The main goal of this guarantee is to protect the parties against ‘excessive procedural delays’. Also, the effect of an indictment upon the reputation of the person is relevant as well. The reasonable time guarantee starts to run from the moment when the individual is a subject of a charge. This right is persistently being violated by local courts in the northern region. Local court structures are being used for purposes other than those for which they were constructed. For instance, in the month of June this year, the court structure of Local Court No 1, situated in Makeni City in the Bombali Shebora Chiefdom was used for workshops, religious crusades, meetings, etc. Some of these activities lasted for several weeks for which hearings were severally adjourned. Such avoidable delays negatively impact on the length of trials, and increases the financial burden on litigants who have to sometimes travel from neighboring towns or villages only to be told that the hearings have been adjourned.
The issue of jurisdiction is very important in fair trial rights administration. Where a court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter, whatever decision it reaches has no force of law – it is a nullity! The Act provides that the local courts shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine all civil cases governed by customary law other than cases between paramount chiefs of tribal authorities involving a question of title of land. However, the sad reality is that despite this provision, traditional leaders have become notorious for consistently interfering in the affairs of the local court within their jurisdictions. Some of them often request, with ‘authority’, for certain cases to be transferred to their illegal courts for ‘adjudication’. A classical case is that between Mohamed Kargbo v Mamusu Turay regarding payment of debt. In that case, because the defendant, Mamusu Turay, was a relative of the Chiefdom Speaker, the said Speaker asked the court chairman to transfer the case to his own ‘court’. This practice does not only undermine fairness, but also gives the impression that chiefs’ ‘courts’ are legally established and in fact, have higher ‘authority’ than the local courts.
Furthermore, the Act provides that local courts have exclusive jurisdiction in matters pertaining to the determination of title to land as a court of first instance. That is, it is only the local courts that have the statutory right to adjudicate in matters relating to land disputes within their chiefdoms. The sad reality, however, is that traditional leaders have almost usurped this jurisdiction from local court officials. They require court chairmen to transfer all cases dealing with title to land to them for determination. The reason for such practice, according to them, is that they are the custodians of land in their chiefdoms. This is in clear contravention of the Act.
The interpretation of documents is another cause for concern as it undermines fair trial rights in local courts. The Act states that the Judicial Adviser or a District Officer shall have access at all times to the records of all local courts and may, of their own motion, review any decision of such court whether civil or criminal.
The seemingly ambiguous wording of this provision has been subjected to different interpretations by those concerned. Some say the provision grants the Provincial Secretary, in the stead of the District Officer, the right to review and overturn decisions of local courts. Others, however, think that it is only the Judicial Adviser, in the person of the customary law officer that has such a right. There have been instances in Makeni when the Provincial Secretary and the customary law officer have had disagreements as to the correct interpretation of the said provision. Hence, the unclear position as to who actually has such authority makes the provision susceptible to abuse. Mostly, when decisions of local courts do not favour parties that are politically connected, the Provincial Secretary is made to review and overturn such decisions.
The right to an interpreter is a fundamental right to a fair trial. If the accused has difficulty speaking, reading or understanding the language used by the courts, he/she has a right to interpretation during court proceedings as well as the translation of all relevant written documents. It is very essential for the accused to be able to follow or understand the proceedings, especially in situations where the penalty for conviction is serious. Local courts use the local dialect of the community in which they are located. There is hardly any interpretation done during proceedings; and where it is done, the accuracy of such is questionable as they are not trained interpreters. This breeds difficulty in a cosmopolitan city like Makeni. So litigants who do not understand the local dialect being used by the court are most times left at the mercy of court officials.
Every individual is entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial judicial body – a court or a tribunal. Courts are also required to decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts, and in accordance with the law. Recent happenings in the north have, however, clouded the competence, independence and impartiality of local courts. Most of the court officials are party activists. They were appointed because of their political affiliations, and not because of their competence and impartiality. For instance, the Local Court No 1 in Bombali hears fewer cases when compared to others in the district. The reason is that since the chairman was politically appointed, he more often than not sides with members with whom he shares the same political interest when delivering verdicts. As such, people holding different political views prefer to take their matters to other courts; some even to the illegal courts operated by chiefs than to the local court.
The administration of fair trial rights is key to effective access to justice by especially the poor and marginalized in society. Therefore, stakeholders in the justice sector should ensure that these rights are protected as guaranteed by law. One way to start is by having the local court fully incorporated under the Judiciary. This will solve the problem between the customary law officer and that of the Provincial Secretary as to who has jurisdiction to review cases.
Also, it will reduce political interference as the officials will be appointed not by the Minister of Local Government on the recommendations of chiefs but by the Judiciary. Moreover, illegal courts will be a thing of the past as the Judiciary will have the sole jurisdiction in settling disputes in customary law matters. And, finally, the courts will learn good practices from the general law courts in terms of human rights and rule of law issues. CARL-SL wishes to commend efforts by the Sierra Leone Government to fully incorporate local courts under the judiciary, which could, among other benefits, ensure that the appointment of Local Court chairmen is based purely on merit and not political considerations.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
The Day of the African Child was celebrated throughout Sierra Leone by various activities including film shows, dances, and parties. School heads treated children to beneficial activities. In some places, the activities concluded without the children even understanding the reason for commemorating the day. But, in large part, children interpret June 16 as their own day – they eat good food, put on their best African dresses, and do things freely without restrictions from parents and teachers.
Juveniles in Prison (Photo Courtesy of viiphoto.com)
Despite the celebration, not all children are able to enjoy this day. In particular, children behind bars lack the freedom to celebrate with their friends and are often neglected. A visit to the Remand Home at King Tom on June 16 left the writers with emotional feelings. Inmates and visitors, through the facilitation of Defence for Children International (DCI), celebrated the day in a unique way. A panel discussion programme was organized. It featured the parties involved in the formal juvenile court system – the magistrate and his two justices of the peace, the defence council, the prosecution, probation and prison officers, court clerks, observers, and the inmates themselves. Statements were made by the defence lawyer, Hafi Hafna, the probation officer, Mr. Saulanneh, and the Magistrate, Mr. Carew.
The Magistrate reiterated the Court’s commitment to see that justice prevails. Specifically, the Magistrate debunked an assertion made by the inmates, while presenting a skit, that there is no justice in Sierra Leone. He intimated to the audience that while many cases can be settled at home rather than court, the juvenile court may hear all cases involving youths except murder (which goes to the High Court). And, he reminded the youths that it is his responsibility to sentence young offenders according to the guidelines given him. He also reminded the audience that the Approved School is not meant to punish but to help reform children and facilitate their growth into useful citizens.
Powerful statements were made by the inmates themselves. When asked how they came in conflict with the law, the children gave several reasons; wanting to have independence, peer pressure, ignorance, desperation, and poor parental care. A former female inmate expressed her gratitude to DCI for their good work and promised to remain a law-abiding citizen because she had seen the bad part of life.
In his statement, the Executive Director of DCI, Mr. Manaf Kemokai, said juvenile justice must go beyond “just” the law. He pleaded with the Magistrate to allow for more mediation. He further admonished the Magistrate and Justices of the Peace to not to give great strength to all of the confessions made by inmates when they are interrogated by police. Such confessions are made under extreme duress and are very unreliable. Often, they inappropriately affect a pending trial.
The Head Boy of the Remand Home’s School used the opportunity to ask the Magistrate whether he would like to meet again next year at the Remand Home. This question was unfortunate because this was, already, the second year they have met in a row. The Head Boy’s question revealed several of the problems of the current juvenile system – long wait periods for the completion of trials, recidivism, and a lack of hope for a productive future. This short article will examine some of the pressing issues the juvenile system currently faces, as observed in recent court monitoring. Inappropriate facilities, transportation problems, long delays in completion of trials, and a lack of translators continue to plague the system.
In a recent case, a juvenile spent several weeks at the maximum-security prison on Pademba Road, which is meant for adult prisoners. The boy in question was initially an inmate of the Remand Home, but he was sent to Pademba Road because he was believed to be very troublesome. This was a gross violation of the boy’s rights in contravention of the Child Rights Act. The CRA indicates that the Court must be sensitive to the needs of children and youth because they have a constructive role to play in society. This situation makes clear that it is necessary to remind the judiciary, and society as a whole, as to their responsibilities in the treatment of juvenile offenders. Being troublesome at the Remand Home does not warrant any authority to take a juvenile to the adult prison. It is absurd to force a child to stay in an adult prison and to try him in a juvenile proceeding.
Children must be treated according to their rights. Being behind bars does not constitute guilt – children are presumed innocent until the contrary is proven. At Pademba Road, the boy was subject to abuse by other inmates and was robbed of any chance for the rehabilitation or counseling opportunities offered by the Remand Home. Children and youth deserve to be treated with more dignity and respect. Another violation of children’s rights noticed during recent court monitoring is the unavailability of a vehicle to transport inmates to court. Remand Home prisoners were denied the right to hearings on the 6th and 7th of June because of the lack of a vehicle to convey them to court. The officer in charge was not even sure of whether the children would be transported on the 8th because the vehicle assigned by the Ministry of Social Welfare, Gender, and Children’s Affairs (MSWGCA) broke-down and needed maintenance. Without the vehicle, children are not taken to Court and must stay incarcerated until they can make it to Court.
It is worrisome because problems like these are likely to continue and be exacerbated as the number of juvenile cases handled by the formal system increases. In the Justice Sector Reform Strategy & Investment Plan of 2008, the Government reported that only about 1,000 juvenile cases were heard in 2005. But, that number has increased in the intervening years. Even with this increase, only minimal changes have been made to the juvenile system in order to deal with more cases. The most pressing problem is the long delays in completing trials. At present, trials are conducted over weeks and months as cases are repeatedly adjourned. We observed one young man who had been held for over two months and who was still waiting for his trial to conclude. This was despite the fact that, due to counseling at the Remand Home, he admitted his act and wanted to be able to move on. But, he has yet to be convicted of committing the act in Court. The Government’s goal is to not permit any children to be held in an adult prison. But, this may become impossible because of the length of juvenile trials. As these trials drag on, other juveniles are arrested and some of them must be detained. But, space in the Remand Home is limited – there are only about twenty inmates currently held there, and it is one of only two Remand Homes in Sierra Leone. This limited space presents a problem as the number of juveniles held before their trial is completed grows.
More seriously, it is a grave violation of the rights of children to hold them in a prison-like facility for months before they have even been convicted of a crime. Yet, this is currently the norm. Another major issue is the lack of translators for juvenile defendants during their hearings. This is a problem throughout the court system in Sierra Leone, but it seems particularly pressing in juvenile trials. Many of the accused young persons have a limited grasp of English. Because of this, it is extremely difficult for them to fully understand the legal proceedings. However, it is not just the accused children that are negatively impacted by the lack of a translator. In a recent case, the accuser was unable to successfully prosecute his case because he did not speak English or Krio. The accuser could only respond to a few simple questions when he testified. The lack of a translator greatly limited his rights. This problem persists throughout Sierra Leone’s legal system despite the great number of translators that have been available to the Special Court.
Overall, the juvenile system has made some positive strides. The Remand Home is in better condition than it was formerly, there is a full-time Juvenile Court, and there is an attorney assigned to all of the juvenile defendants. But, more needs to be done to promote justice for all youths. To fully celebrate the Day of the African Child and ensure that all children, even those that are incarcerated, have their rights protected in Sierra Leone, we urge that the following recommendations be considered. All children and youth, not convicted of a crime, must be released on bail, given to the oversight of a probation officer, or placed in the Remand Home, depending on the severity of the charged offense. The MSWGCA must ensure that there is a secure vehicle available to transport youth from the Remand Home to the Court every day trials are scheduled. If a vehicle is unavailable, the MSWGCA should consider sharing vehicles between the prisons for necessary transport. If a vehicle is unavailable, the MSWGCA should consider escorting individual juveniles with appropriate security in other available government vehicles. Translators must be available at the Court House. The Government should consider training local translators to work in the Court House. Not every trial needs a translator for its entire duration so a few translators could possibly be shared between all the Courts. The length of juvenile trials must be shortened. Hold fewer trials each day. Even if fewer trials are held, giving more time to individual trials will mean that it can be resolved in fewer days. Schedule juvenile trials with more advance warning. Give all interested parties more time to prepare and to expect that all issues will be settled in as short a time as possible. The Government should examine the cost of housing youth in the Remand Home. It is possible that, by shortening the length of trials and increasing the use of probation officers, money might be saved.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
Penal systems exist for many reasons. In general, two theories drive the decision by courts on how to punish criminals: retribution, punishment for the sake of punishment, or utilitarianism, punishment in order to strengthen society. Courts are also concerned with rehabilitation, aimed at rebranding offenders. And, when dealing with juveniles, opportunities for rehabilitation are especially important as punitive measures may not be in the best interest of the child. In Sierra Leone, juvenile justice usually seeks one of two objectives: punishment by imposition of criminal liability on a young offender or rehabilitation by emphasizing support for the child in conflict with the law. When the system focuses on punishment, delinquency is determined by the tolerance level and perceptions of the citizens in the neighborhood of the juvenile misconduct. After identifying the crime, police will investigate, arrest, and prosecute the juvenile. Police take custody of the young person after they arrest him or her. Police can also take juveniles into custody if they are in danger or in violation of a court order.
Because of persistent problems of age determination, police have a lot of discretion after taking young offenders into custody. The police may decide whether to prosecute the youth as an adult and present him to a Magistrate or to try him as a juvenile and present him to the juvenile court for an intake hearing. The juvenile court must determine if sufficient grounds exist for a hearing. If the juvenile court maintains jurisdiction, the juvenile will undergo a trial in that court. There, the juvenile keeps all the protections of adult defendants. But, juvenile court proceedings have a few key differences, which tend to suggest that juvenile offenders should not be treated like their adult counterparts. For juveniles, anonymity of the defendant may be paramount and is usually maintained. Also, the Magistrate may have greater freedom in deciding on an appropriate sentence. He is not normally bound by provisions of law in issuing sentences. The Magistrate will sentence only after a dispositional hearing where he is guided by any relevant information, especially the probation officer’s report. The Magistrate may select probation, with conditions, commitment to a juvenile correction facility, restitution, fines and placement into a foster home or special program, among other options. Police may also determine whether to treat the alleged offence informally and mediate between the parties.
Rehabilitation and child welfare concerns also impact the way the system operates too. Such concerns emphasize social reintegration, consider the child’s age, and hope to help the child assume a constructive role in future society. The requirement for including such provisions comes from Article 40(1) of the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child. Also, Article 17(3) of the African Charter on the Rights of the Child (ACRC) aims to ensure that the goal of juvenile justice be “the essential aim of treatment of every child during trial and also if found guilty of infringing the penal law shall be his or her reformation, reintegration into his or her family, and social rehabilitation.” The Beijing Rules support similar principles. The remainder of this article will focus on how these principles are being practiced in the country.
The Children and Young Persons Act of 1965 defines a child as a person younger than fourteen years (14) and a youth as a person of fourteen years or above, but below seventeen years. The Child Right Act (CRA) of 2007 expanded the definition of a child to any person below the age of eighteen years. The CRA indicates that the short and long-term interests of the child be the primary considerations in juvenile justice. More specifically, it provides that there should be no discrimination against children and all children have a right to life and development. In the CRA, juveniles are to be dealt with through the establishment of a child panel, with function to mediate in criminal and civil matters, facilitate reconciliation between the child and the person offended, and, in civil cases, deal with the child’s rights versus the parent. The Child Panel is to warn the child, recommend community programming that will help the child make up for his offence, or ask the child to apologize and make restitution to the offended.
The rehabilitation model was firmly enshrined in the CRA. In addition to the panel, it made provision for the establishment of a Family Court to be charged with the responsibility of mediating all matters of parentage, custody and maintenance of the children, and issue care orders for foster care. The Family Court is comprised of a presiding Magistrate, parents and relatives of the child, probation officers, and the child. The child is entitled to legal representation, to be heard and express his opinion, privacy, such as non-disclosure of the child’s identity, and information about his right to appeal.
Following a rehabilitation model also requires the establishment of a separate court for juveniles, as discussed above. In the CRA, this court is meant to be in a different building and to be presided over by a specially-trained Magistrate with two Justices of the Peace. In addition, there are other provisions aiming at protecting children, parents for example, are responsible for protecting the child from neglect and registering the child’s birth. The State must promote the child’s rights and protect his or her welfare. Further, the State must monitor and coordinate the activities of the child welfare committee. So, the State must ensure that juveniles are not tried in open court nor detained in the same cells as adults.
Up to now, these elemental rights still face possibilities of neglect throughout Sierra Leone, especially in the provinces. Although children awaiting trial were kept in a Remand Home in Bo, they are often tried in the same court as adults. In some situations, they are placed in the same cells with adult offenders. So, to fulfill some aspects of the CRA, Magistrate Mohamed Stevens has begun to operate a juvenile-only court in Bo. The juvenile court sits on Thursdays from 9:00am to 12:00pm, depending on the case load. It is located in the adult court room, but attendance is limited to the Magistrate, two Justices of the Peace, parents of the child, probation officers, and human rights observers. Since its inception, several juvenile matters have been settled.
To further ensure the promotion and protection of children’s rights in Bo District, the Ministry of Social Welfare, Gender, and Children’s Affairs has joined with child protection agencies, civil society organizations, traditional leaders, and other stakeholders from a wide spectrum of society to form the Bo District Child Task Force. The Task Force is empowered to monitor, document, and report all forms of abuses and violations against children within the district.
The creation of this Task Force has still not achieved perfection. Hence despite their relentless effort to ensure a juvenile system that is separate from the formal adult judiciary procedure, there is still room for improvement. There is still need for sensitization of the requirements of the Child Rights Act through community radio programmes and community meetings, thereby providing more information on the provisions of the legislation. Also, there is a need to facilitate the refurbishment of the Magistrate court in Bo to make provision for a separate place / rooms for the trial of juveniles and for a family court. To further promote child welfare, the government can establish foster care homes for the care and protection of children and Chiefdom and village child welfare committees should be empowered with guidance and counseling training to adequately mediate in child protection issues in their locality.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
I sit in the Juvenile Court surrounded by young boys waiting for their trial to commence, one by one. Across from me, sits the Magistrate and the two Justice of the Peace officers. On the sides of the room are the Defense Team and the Sierra Leone Police serving as Prosecutors. The room is polluted with frustration as the Magistrate calls Thaimu Thorlie to the front of the court. He comes forward with his head down and arms crossed behind his back. His feet are bare and his clothes appear to be unwashed for days now. Thaimu assures the court again that he is seventeen years of age, but despite this reassurance, he has been serving time at the Pademba Road Maximum Prison for nearly 2 weeks. What is mind-boggling and paradoxical is that while serving his time at Pademba road prison he still falls under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court.
Juveniles Detainees (Photo Courtesy sierraexpressmedia.com)
I’m ensconced here observing the trial, the people involved, and the accused young person, realizing that many issues with the Juvenile System that must be addressed are completely left in the dark. I wonder what kind of fair trial these young boys are receiving. You have one Justice of the Peace (JP) in and out of naps, the Defence Team is constantly mocking the behaviour of the Magistrate, and a prosecuting officer reading a novel, not really attempting to be discreet.
I’m anxious to understand how it is that this system whose aim is to place the interest of the child first – to serve as rehabilitation and assist in the reintegration of child offenders back into the community – manages to fall astray from these intentions. The future of these young children is in their hands; and yet, they sit there napping and reading, as if the youth’s destiny has already been pre-determined with no hope for a fair trial and a prosperous future. Yet, like all other children, juvenile offenders are part of the foundation and future of this country.
This case demonstrates that the Age Assessment Guidelines are clearly being ignored within the Juvenile Justice System. In early June, the Sierra Leone Judiciary collaborated with UNICEF and the Justice Sector Development Program (JSDP) for two-day training on “Age Assessment Guidelines”. Police, social workers and magistrates were all welcomed to participate in the workshop, focused on ensuring a fair trial for the children who come in conflict with the law. Like the accused juvenile above, there are several children who have come in conflict with the law and have had their age questioned and doubted by the court.
One of the most serious repercussions is being sent to the Pademba Maximum Prison where adults are serving time for the crimes they have committed. This is partly due to the lack of alternative detention facilities available for those who come in conflict with the law. It is common for juvenile offenders to be placed in detention when they are not able to post bail while waiting for their trial, increasing the number of child detainees in the system.
International instruments exist to guarantee that specific rights are not being violated and denied to the child. One of those instruments is the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which was ratified by Sierra Leone in 1990; making the Government bound to give certain protections to all children, even those in conflict with the law. Under the CRC, states must ensure that children are placed in a separate detention facility from adults and treated with “humanity and respect for [their] inherent dignity …”
[1]. The need for a separate facility is reiterated in chapter 44 of the Laws of Sierra Leone 1960 (CAP 44) in the Children’s and Young Person’s Act, calling for separate facilities for those who are under the age of eighteen years taking the needs of the child into consideration. In 1947 under the Ministry of Social Welfare, the establishment of remand homes and approved schools took place. Their main purpose is to ensure that the children are properly cared for. They also focus on the rehabilitation aspect of the young offender. Like several other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society groups, CARL advocates for the needs of the children to come first.
Determining the minimum age of criminal responsibility is crucial to the creation of a just juvenile justice system. Assessing the needs of children who are facing the criminal justice system is what the Age Assessment Guidelines are attempting to do. At the moment, the standard is ambiguous because it varies in the several laws and documents that Sierra Leone is ascribed to. The Beijing Rules state that the age “…shall not be fixed at too low an age level, bearing in mind the facts of emotional, mental and intellectual maturity…”
[2] The Convention on the Rights of the Child mentions that the absolute minimum age of responsibility shall be set at nothing lower than twelve years of age
[3]. Furthermore, the Sierra Leonean laws do not regulate a concrete age of criminal responsibility; rather only mention that children under the age of ten cannot be held criminally responsible.
Why is it important to determine a minimum age of criminal responsibility and have it set in stone in international laws and the national laws? This may seem like an absurd question to ask, for it makes complete sense to do so. But the fact is that there are children in the juvenile justice system of Sierra Leone that are falling in between the cracks and are being denied of their basic human rights. The Age Assessment Guidelines workshop, provided earlier in June, serves as a beginning step to further improve this system. The purpose of the criminal justice system for juveniles is to promote a restorative justice approach for the children and the community. It is meant to rehabilitate young offenders and assist in a full reintegration into the community. When a child becomes pinned in a system that is doing more harm than good, a loss of confidence and trust takes over him/her. This can become dangerous as more children are stirring away from a system that could potentially assist in the development of future for the child.
All key players in the juvenile justice system must look into these guidelines and become fully educated to fulfill their role as an advocate for the child. There needs to be a set age for criminal responsibility that will be uniform and go in sync with all Sierra Leoneans laws throughout the country. Detention of young offenders in the maximum security prison must cease, and instead, evolve to a system where prolonged pre-trial detention is limited and there are alternatives, such as the Remand Home or providing custodial supervision. The conditions found in these detention facilities must comply with international regulations and provide the basic needs for the personal growth of the youth. As mentioned earlier, the establishment of remand homes has been seen as a step forward, yet there only being one in Freetown and Bo, neglects other young offenders outside of these locations of this opportunity.
It is still very premature to determine the lasting effects of the age determination guidelines on Sierra Leone’s juvenile justice system. Through increased awareness and education on the issues at hand, the future of the Sierra Leonean child can see a new light of day.
[1] Article 37(c) of The Convention on the Rights of the Child
[2] United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (“The Beijing Rule”), adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 40/33 of 29. November 2985, Rule 4.1
[3] Committee on the Rights of the Child, ‘General Comment No. 10: Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice’, United Nations Doc. CRC/C/GC/10 (9 February 2007), para. 28(c)
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
The number of civil society organizations (CSOs) in Sierra Leone has shot up since the end of the war. The role of CSOs and NGOs shot into prominence particularly during the country’s 11-year civil conflict (1991-2002). These organizations played a critical role in providing relief and emergency care during and after the war, and also contributed in no small measure to bringing an end to the conflict.
Marching for Gender Equality in Freetown in 2007
Some CSOs, for instance, led advocacy campaigns, organized protests, participated in peace talks, and raised international public awareness about the gravity of the conflict. After the conflict, NGOs and CSOs have continued to provide and monitor the delivery of health care services; they have also remained engaged in environmental, security, capacity building, governance issues, among others. These efforts have helped to consolidate peace and prevent the country from relapsing into conflict. It should be noted, though, that CSOs and NGOS are no alternatives to governments; their efforts are only meant to be complimentary, and should not be used as a justification or excuse by any government to shirk its responsibility to its citizenry.
A fundamental element of the work CSOs do relates to oversight and monitoring functions of both central and local government activities. The assumption is that these organizations have the capacity, resources, and the independent-thinking ability required to hold governments accountable in a manner that individual citizens cannot. In Sierra Leone, elections for presidential, parliamentary and local council positions are held every four or five years which means that citizens can only get a chance to make a judgment on the performances of elected officials on periodic basis. The job of monitoring and assessing government performance on a continuing basis, therefore, rests primarily with CSOs. When CSOs perform their oversight functions with distinction, governments are more likely to be efficient and committed to fulfilling their pre-election promises. In African democracies, governments are somewhat reluctant to provide regular account of their stewardship to the electorate, much less give unhindered public access to information. This is where CSOs in particular can play a critical role in terms of constantly reminding them about their obligations to the public.
Women’s Groups Marching for the Gender Bills
in Freetown in 2007 (Photo Courtesy of Justin Hane)
In spite of their monitoring responsibility, and probably because of it, CSOs have a responsibility to be accountable and transparent in the conduct of their business in just the same way as government institutions. This article is basically about the inescapable need for CSOs to be transparent in the way they conduct business, and how they can claim or reclaim the moral high ground as the legitimate monitors of government institutions.
This article also seeks to respond to the question of “how a monitor gets monitored?” I make bold to state that CSOs do not need to be monitored; they can dispense with the need for monitors by doing the right things – providing audited quarterly or annual financial reports, complying with standard procurement rules, providing accurate report of their activities to their funding partners, getting the public to know their funding levels just as governments disclose their annual budgets to the public. These are all doable, and it is critical that CSOs begin or continue to do so.
I chose to discuss this issue because during a meeting of CSOs several weeks ago, a heated argument reportedly ensued regarding the extent of accountability or lack of it in civil society. I am not sure whether there were any winners on the day, but it once again brought to the fore the need to face the issue head-on, initiate discussions about it, and start on a fresh path to addressing the anomaly. This issue cannot be wished away; it requires serious and sustained discussions with the view to agreeing on common ways to addressing it. Otherwise, the cloud of suspicion that hangs over our activities, even if unjustified in some cases, will persist for the foreseeable future.
I am also aware that one of Sierra Leone’s leading consultancy firms has been hired to undertake a study on the degree of accountability in civil society. It is obvious that the consultant will seek to inquire into the funding regime of CSOs, their procurement procedures, internal control mechanisms, quality and quantity of projects, value for money, among others. I suspect that some civil society groups may find the raison d’être of the research a little strange, but I think that this will b a fantastic opportunity to either keep the debate or suspicion alive or put an end to it for the foreseeable future. It is important that every CSO cooperate with the researcher, I think, as it would help dispel the rumours and suspicion surrounding their activities.
While CSOs have a responsibility to be accountable to the members of the public, I think that funding agencies also have a role to play in helping foster accountability among them. It is very important that CSOs continue to get the funds required to undertake their various, critical activities. Funding agencies should also take strong interest in what their grantees are doing by not only taking part in some of their activities, where possible, but also paying occasional visits to their offices or project sites to get a sense of what they do. I do not suggest that this is not happening, however, I think that there is room for improvement.
On June 2, I got a chance to meet with the new Programme Officer of the Global Funds for Human Rights (GFHR), one of CARL’s funding partners. The meeting went well, and I was extremely impressed with some of the probing questions that the officials got to ask. These are the kinds of visits and questions that help us do things in a consistently proper manner. After all, we are just humans! While governmental accountability is mandatory, the need for CSOs and NGOs to be accountable and transparent is largely a matter of logic and necessity. It only makes sense that those who pretend or actually hold governments accountable for their actions are themselves accountable and transparent in every sense of it. It is not asking for too much! It is simply normal, and the right thing to do.
Consistent with the issue of accountability is the need for CSOs to build and protect their integrity. One of the fundamental ways of doing this is to remain insulated from government interference or control. CARL believes that CSOs must cooperate with government institutions at all times with the view to collectively addressing the challenges that confront Sierra Leone. However, CSOs must resist the temptation of being co-opted by the government. If they can successfully build a bulwark against government co-option, civil societies will continue to play a critical role in governance. That way, they will continue to enjoy public confidence, just as their ability to continue providing alternative voices and direction to the government will remain unscathed. The opposite completely undermines their capacity and integrity, and could ultimately make the government unresponsive to the needs of its people.
Finally, and on a different note, it is important that CSOs begin to undertake joint programming initiatives. Collaboration is required to optimize resources, minimize waste and avoid unnecessary duplicity. Over the coming weeks and months, CARL will initiate discussions with CSOs that focus on similar objectives with the view to sharing experiences and resources. CSOs cannot afford to be unnecessarily undertaking similar programmes in the same community; or to be criss-crossing the same town to implement similar projects with the same objectives. It is only through effective communication among CSOs that this can be avoided. It is important that CSOs begin to communicate, and do so in good faith.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
Some officials of the Local Court No.2 in Bo have not stopped amusing court users and independent monitors with their endless quarrel over money. In spite of two previous articles published by The Monitor regarding their insatiable desire to enrich themselves through fraudulent means, their financial antics do not seem to have gone away. Recently, a quarrel ensued between the Court Chairman and his clerk over an alleged misappropriation of court funds, leaving court users, observers and other court officials shell-shocked at the degree of unethical practices by officials who should otherwise be standard bearers. Allegations of court officials embezzling fines received on behalf of the court or a litigant abounds. Currently, there are ceaseless allegations of how the former Court Clerk embezzled funds collected on behalf of litigants. While these allegations are yet to be investigated, the current Court Clerk and the Chairman have demonstrated clearly that they cannot act as safe custodians of court funds. Their alleged acts may have somewhat impugned their reputation, and by extension, public confidence in the verdicts reached by them. It is about time that the Local Government Ministry started paying keen attention to some of these anomalies.
This piece seeks to highlight some of the laws that these officials may have breached – as well as the implications of their actions for the credibility of the court and the justice system in general.
Section 42 (2) of the Sierra Leone Local Court Act 1963 states that “Whosoever accepts or obtains for himself or for any other person — by any corrupt or illegal means or by corrupt personal influence – to do or forbear to do any act which the said member [or] officer — is authorized to do in exercise of his —functions — shall be guilty of an offence”. And section 42 (3) prescribes the punishment for such an offence – a fine not exceeding £100 or to an imprisonment to a term not exceeding 12 months or to both such fine and — imprisonment”.
Section 8 confers financial responsibilities on the Court Clerk, which include keeping an account of all monies paid or received by the court. The Court Chairman, with assistance from at least ¾ of the panel of assessors, hears and adjudicates cases that are related to the customs of a particular locality/chiefdom. The chairman has no financial responsibilities. Plain and simple!
It is curious that in a recent civil case between Fanta Dabor (Plantiff) and Hawa Chernor (Defendant), the Chairman of the Local Court No. 2 in Bo is alleged to have received a summons fee of Le20,000 (approximately $4) from the complainant which he allegedly failed to hand over to the Court Clerk. This led to a confrontation between the two officials for at least ten minutes in the full glare of the public.
Cost awards are meant to compensate victorious litigants for the expenses they incurred prosecuting or defending a legal dispute. When cost awards are ordered by a Court, it is important that the orders are fully executed. Otherwise, the court’s role as a dispute resolution body may be grossly undermined, and this could encourage people to take the law into their own hands. It is even worse when Court officers receive fines on behalf of a victorious litigant and refuse to hand them over to them, as is often the case at the Local Court No. 2 in Bo. It is simply reprehensible!
It is also critical that court officials demonstrate honesty and discipline even in their private lives as it helps reinforce public confidence in the actions/decisions taken in their official capacity. This has largely not been the case for the Chairman of the Local Court No.2 in Bo. Apparently, the chairman is also an agent of the Bo Traders’ Union, a position which allows him to negotiate loans on behalf of the traders. Every trader who wishes to obtain loan from the bank must pay a registration fee to the Chairman, which he ostensibly uses to process application documents. A separate quarrel recently ensued between the Chairman and a female trader, Princess Saffa, who claims to have paid Le75,000 (approximately $15) to him as partial registration fee for a bank loan. Even though the Chairman has conceded to receiving the money, efforts to get him initiate the process by the lady have so far proved futile. Realizing that the Chairman’s delay in processing her application documents posed a serious risk to her chances of getting the loan, she confronted him in open court asking for either a refund of her money or the completed registration form. The confrontation did not only interrupt proceedings on the day, it also constituted a breach of court decorum.
As Sierra Leone continues to make strong efforts at rebuilding its justice system, it is critical that some of these anomalies are addressed by the authorities concerned. The alleged misconducts of these officers could leave an indelible, negative impression about their competence and personality. This may invariably contribute to a general lack of confidence in the justice system, which could pose a threat to peace and stability in the country.
It is recommended, among others, that a Judicial Disciplinary Unit (JDU) be established to investigate and prosecute complaints of official misconduct by court officials. The JDU should be decentralized in order to effectively address complaints of misconduct arising from local courts across the country.
