by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
The traditions of various ethnic groups in Sierra Leone expect local chiefs to settle certain disputes at the community (village) level. Complaints relating to insults are among the most common that come before the chiefs and the Local Courts. Women seem to be highest offenders. In the Mende tradition, insults break regulations for personal integrity, respect for one another and harmonious co- existence, for which offenders are liable to pay fines. Usually, when such cases are reported and the allegations challenged by the defendant before the chiefs and the local courts, both the plaintiff and the defendant are ordered to pay upfront an amount of money before the matter can be heard. Both the chiefs and local courts say the money will be used to pay fines due the victorious party. This clearly constitutes an abuse of process, and a serious infringement of the rights of both defendants and plaintiffs. It certainly places a burden on all the parties, and sometimes inhibits a person who feels genuinely offended from coming before the courts or chiefs to file complaints.
This article will discuss the laws governing the rights of parties and how they are being negated at two distinct levels of the local justice system. It will also analyse the implications for the litigants and the image of the Local Court system. It will also make recommendations to forestall the odd practices and make way for improvements.
Sierra Leone is a signatory to (and has ratified some of) the agreements and conventions that are applicable in the anomalies raised in this article. These include Article 14 (2) of the International Covenant on the Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 7 (1) (6) of the African Charter, all of which speak of the right to presumption of innocence of an accused or defendant. Specifically, they enumerate that a fundamental principle of the right to fair trial is the right of every person to be presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty after a fair trial. This right applies not only to treatment in court and the evaluation of evidence, but also to treatment before trial and goes on until the final judgement and appeal. This right requires that chiefs, chairmen and panel members refrain from pre-judgement of the case, and that authorities do not make statements implicating a case party, or about the guilt or innocence of a defendant before the outcome of the trial.
Article 14 (7) of the ICCPR states that no one may be tried or punished again in the same jurisdiction for an offence for which he or she has been tried or punished (fined) before.
Cases of insult emanating from local communities that come before either local courts or the chiefs often attract a series of fines that are for the most part exploitative, to say the least. When a defendant admits guilt for an allegation of insult in a chiefs ‘barry’, he or she pays a case withdrawal fee (equal to the summons fee), a compensation to the plaintiff, as well as a fine for a breach of community law. The two former payments go to the plaintiff and the latter to the chief. The three categories often vary depending on the preference of the individual chief. Where the allegation is challenged by the defendant, some chiefs impose parallel fines usually between Le 20,000 – Le 30,000 (approximate $7) on the rival parties, and then advise the aggrieved party to take his/her case to a Local Court with a fresh summons fee of Le 30,000 (approximately $7). During hearing, if the statements of the plaintiff and his witnesses corroborate, the court’s panel imposes parallel fines on the plaintiff and the defendant usually of between Le 50,000 – Le 100,000 (or more), contingent upon the immorality used in the insult(s). This fine is in fulfilment of the Mende traditional belief that ‘an offence is committed only when the circumstance involves more than one individual.’ This legitimizes the imposition of the fine even on the aggrieved party. It is intended that this fine shall be heaped on the losing side at judgment.
Central to our concern are the issues relating to multiple fine payments by the plaintiff and the defendant for reported cases of insult(s), with the associated abuses that accompany them. Social and legal fines are intended as punishments for wrongs done to others in society, and in other cases are imposed on individuals found guilty in disputes to deter them from repeating the act. If this is the case, we may then ask why our chiefs and the Local Courts impose them on case parties even before proper proceedings start? Obviously, the imposition of fines on the litigants during hearing is an implied presumption of the guilt of both sides and has nothing to do with any traditional dictate. Besides, it adds insult to injury to impose such a fine on an already aggrieved person seeking redress in a court of law. This overtly abuses their right of presumption of innocence as they have been punished unjustifiably. Then there is the aspect of double punishment. The fees imposed before the start of proceedings, as well as after the judgment and probably are all additional violations. As civil matters have the purpose of providing compensation for the wrong(s) done to the aggrieved party, in the circumstances described above the Local Courts have added colours of exploitation, part of which profits the presiding panel members’ pockets.
The multiple fees ordered by the courts increases the expenses incurred by the guilty party, who may have also incurred expenses of the victorious party during the proceedings. Usually, it runs to such high sums that most losers find it difficult to pay even when divided into the usual two or three instalments of payments. This often leads to difficulty for the victorious party receiving the fines imposed and the delay by the courts in enforcing the judgments. This also has the unfortunate effect of creating a poor reputation for the Local Courts and its administration of justice – a replica of the pre-civil war situation in this country.
In light of the above, CARL wishes to proffer these recommendations as remedies to improve on the traditional and local administrative set up regarding the adjudication of insult cases.
– A unified cost of summons fees at all courts of community and section chiefs along with minimal fines for cases of insults.
– The abolition of pre-judgement parallel fines that violate citizens’ right to fair trial, while at the same time lowering the financial burden on parties.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
The trial of the case of The State V. Momoh Kemoh Konteh, one of the most publicized corruption-related cases in contemporary times in Sierra Leone, has at last come to an end. The accused was indicted on five counts and stood trial before Justice A. H. Charm of the High Court No. 2 Freetown. Count 1 was soliciting an advantage, contrary to section 35(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act 2008; Count 2, peddling influence, contrary to section 31(3) of the same Act; Count 3, soliciting an advantage contrary to section 35(1) of the Act; and Count 4 and 5, conspiracy contrary to section 128 of the Act. The accused, defended by two seasoned legal practitioners, Hon. Manley-Spaine, technically assisted by C.F Edwards, was discharged and acquitted on all charges.
The judgment invited mixed reactions from the public, civil society organizations, the media and the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC). Lead defence Counsel N.E Manley-Spaine said that he was not taken by surprise as, during his final submission, he had stated that the prosecution had failed woefully to prove the guilt of the accused, as was on the face of the indictment. The indictment had specific sums of monies which were allegedly solicited (US$50,000 in count 1 and US$100,000 in count 3). Since the prosecution failed to discharge the burden in proving this with respect to the accused, there remains some doubt and it is a principle of law that all doubts work in favour of the accused. The ACC boss Joseph Kamara convened a press conference after the judgment was delivered during which he stated inter alia that his “confidence in the judicial system of Sierra Leone is shaken”, advocating for a specialized division of the High Court to be created to handle only corruption related cases. The trial generated much controversy from all walks of life in which conspiracy theories tended to overwhelm logical reasoning. The lead prosecutor and director of prosecution for the ACC, Reginald Fynn, disclosed his disappointment by stating, “I am lost as to which ‘independent evidence’ could have been stronger than the documentary and international witnesses”. In a further interview with R. S. Fynn Esq. by CARL’s Court Monitors, he said that they will likely not appeal the judgment as it was founded on facts as opposed to law and appeals can only be grounded on the latter. CARL-SL now makes an objective scrutiny and appraisal of the judgment.
The Anti-Corruption Commission, in its bid to prove the guilt of the accused, called five witnesses, one of which (PW4) was only tendered. The rest of the witnesses listed on the back of the indictment were dispensed with. Judgement has been finally delivered by the presiding justice and has been received with mixed feelings from members of the public. The vast majority of the public, CARL-SL, other civil society organisations and the Anti-Corruption Commission are wondering why or how the court cleared the accused of all five counts, given the evidence that was led before the courts. There are doubts as to how the accused escaped culpability for conspiracy and peddling influence, at least. The Justice of the Superior Court of Judicature however, in part held that the absence of “independent evidence” led to the failure of the prosecution’s case for some of the charges and therefore accordingly acquitted and discharged the accused.
Evidence was led to the effect that a key prosecution witness, PW5, called the accused person whilst in Ghana and told him of their desire to establish a company in Sierra Leone that would trade in timber and that they were coming to Sierra Leone in order for the accused to help them with the necessary political connections in registering the company. From the onset, the accused person knew that there was a blanket ban on timber logging for environmental protection purposes. The accused, however, assured the investors that he would help them meet with the Vice President of the Republic of Sierra Leone and the Director of Forestry so that they could register the company and engage in the said illegal trade. There is independent evidence that they had a total of seven secret meetings in different places, including one in the office of the accused person and another in the office of the Vice President. A reasonable man will be left believing that all these meetings were geared towards putting the necessary measures in place to connect them with the right people in society.
Secondly, there was clear evidence that the accused person introduced Alex Mansaray to the investors, and was then charged with the responsibility of knocking at the doors that mattered. This, the prosecution believed, showed that the accused person and Alex Mansaray were acting in furtherance of a common design. The two did not actually demand an advantage, but the prosecution tried to establish that there was an indication of willingness to receive one as it was exemplified in the phone conversation between Anas and Alex Mansaray in which the co-accused person, who is at large, stated the reward that should be given to people who assisted them in registering the company. The prosecution also led evidence to the effect that the accused requested the sum of US$2000 from Anas (PW5) and the said amount was given to him as part payment for the registration and “clearing of the way” for the establishment of the said company. This money was to be given to the Honourable Vice President so that they could with ease establish the company, even though there was a ban on the trade. There is also independent evidence that the accused was hired by the investors to prepare and register the said company.
CARL-SL would seek further advice as to whether an “independent corroboration” is required where the defence fails or doesn’t attempt to rebut, impugn or discredit the prosecution’s witness or evidence. While the burden of proof is on the prosecution, that burden, we argue, doesn’t include the “invention” of an independent witness to corroborate evidence where the defence has either failed to rebut or has made no attempt in doing so. The learned Judge’s ratio on the question of whether Alex Mansaray and the accused were acting in furtherance of the common design for the solicitation of money and influence peddling seems to have been based on the “absence of an independent witness”, and that certainly requires further probing. This is because it is clear from the evidence of Annas (PW5) that the US$2,000 was given to the accused (Momoh Conteh) being part payment of the US$10,000 was not only for the registration of the company, but also to “clear the way”. Furthermore, in transcripts ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ played in court, the accused is quoted to have told Bilal and PW5 to take care of the Director of Forestry in order for him to give them support, what seems to be unchallengeable primary evidence that was played in court.
Finally, statutes or legislation are drafted by parliament. Despite the great care taken to ensure that statutes are clear and exact, it is certain that as time goes by legal actions will arise on points of doubt and the court will be called upon to interpret the meaning and to give judgement. According to Professor John Willis in his influential article ‘Statutory Interpretation in a Nutshell’ (1938) suggested that “a court invokes whichever of the rules produces a result that satisfies its sense of justice before it. Although the literal rule is the one most frequently referred to in express terms, the courts treat all three as valid and refer to them as occasion demands, but naturally enough do not assign any reason for choosing one rather than the other”. It is very clear that the judge applied the literal rule of statutory interpretation. The court should, in the interest of justice, take a broader look as to the intention of parliament. If we continue to look at soliciting and peddling in this manner as defined by the judge then the net will be let loose for corrupt officials to easily escape. A more objective approach needs to be taken. Despite the overwhelming evidence presented in court by the prosecution the presiding Justice stated in his judgement that there is no independent evidence before him to find the accused culpable on any of the charges.
We at CARL also think that the judge considered the issue of ‘agent provocateur’, which the Black Law dictionary defines thus: “an agent provocateur is a person who entraps another, or entices another to break the law, and then informs against the other as a lawbreaker”. This is because, following the facts of the case, this is exactly what happened. Although it was the state that brought the matter to court, it was the ‘would-be investors’ who entrapped the accused, as they were fully aware that timber exploitation was banned. In essence, the accused were incited by the al-Jazeera journalists in their film-making mission to expose corruption in the country.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
On June 12, Freetown City Council published its first quarterly Statement of Account for 2013. The report was read out at a community outreach meeting in Freetown well before it was published on the council’s notice board. According to the minutes of this meeting, it was the ’first time’ in the council’s history to have His Worship the Mayor read the council’s Statement of Account in a public meeting.
The sources from which revenues were collected in these three months include: own source revenue, local tax, property rate, market dues, licenses fees and property income not excluding fees and other charges. From all these sources, a total of Le 3.6 billion (approximately $805,000) was collected in revenue. However, the council maintained that this figure fell below their estimated target. It is commendable that the council is now taking steps to foster a transparent and accountable leadership, even if there is a lot of room for improvement.
In February 2013, CARL and its partners commenced the implementation of a $125,000 OSIWA-funded project titled, “Local Government Accountability and Citizens’ Participation” in six districts across the country. The project seeks to promote accountability in Local Councils and to bring citizens closer to governance by encouraging them participate in the governance of their localities/communities.
Our partners include Movement for Restoration and Rural Democracy (MORRD) in the East, Human Empowerment and Development Foundation (HEMDEF) in the South, and the Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (CDHR) in the North. CARL is implementing the project in the Western Area, where we have built very strong partnership with the Freetown City Council (FCC) and the Western Rural District Council (WRDC). These partnerships, particularly with the FCC, have proven to be useful. Recently, CARL arranged consultative meetings with councillors and other stakeholders to chart a way forward in terms of addressing the council’s perennial problems. We have also collaborated in radio discussion programmes and held joint community outreach meetings. As well as the progress we are making in Freetown and the Western area, our partners in the other districts are also moving forward. In Kenema, for example, our partners have forged such strong relationships with the local council that they have routinely been invited to council meetings in an attempt to have their input.
In spite of the slight improvements observed in Freetown and other districts, there remain some challenges that the councils must overcome to become a complete success story. One such challenge is the erecting of notice boards in wards to enhance transparency and accountability through the display of basic information. There is also the problem of little or no financial support for Ward Committee members, as shown by the amount of funds allocated to the councils in the 2013 citizens’ budget.
Also in Kenema district, as a result of our advocacy, the council has asked for funding from International Food and Agricultural Development (IFAD) who have agreed to locate offices for councilors in all wards which come with notice boards, thereby fulfilling the aspirations of this project.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
In order to prevent the implementation gap that seems to have afflicted many new laws in Sierra Leone, government and civil society organizations have been working together to ensure that the legal aid law is effectively implemented. The law, passed in May 2013 as part of efforts to enhance access to justice for particularly indigent persons in Sierra Leone, requires massive financial and moral support from government, development partners and civil society groups across the country. More importantly, there is need for a coordinated approach to implementation. To this end, the Justice Sector Coordinating Office (JSCO), a unit within the Office of the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, has worked over the last year with local and international organizations to do the ground work for the Legal Aid Board and its secretariat.
This article looks at some of the activities completed by the coordinating unit and its partners, as well as the remaining tasks that need to be done.
A critical step towards implementing the law requires the setting up of the Legal Aid Board, a supervisory structure which has wide ranging functions including the administration, coordination and monitoring the provision of legal aid in civil and criminal matters. The Board comprises ten members drawn from government agencies, the judiciary, civil society organizations and academic institutions, among others. With support from civil society and other partners, the JSCO has now obtained nominations from all the relevant institutions that should constitute the Board. This is a critical milestone in the implementation schedule of the law. The nominees are expected to be sworn in by the president before they start work in earnest.
Additionally, the JSCO has successfully partnered with a six-member working group of local and international organizations to undertake a mapping survey of all organizations involved with the provision of legal aid services; including legal advice, assistance, education and paralegal services. The report has been produced and will be shared with the Legal Aid Board. It will provide a useful tool for the Board in terms of forging partnerships and designing its intervention strategy.
In partnership with civil society, the JSCO has hired the services of a consultant to develop a communications strategy for the Legal Aid Board. The idea is to ensure that a common message is used by all concerned in communicating the legal aid law. It also seeks to advise the Board on matters regarding the media institutions that exist around the country, and the ones that could be useful in the work of the Board. The communication strategy is useful not only to the Board, but also to other partners involved in the implementation of the legal aid law.
These efforts are aimed at ensuring that the board hits the ground running, however, a number of issues remain to be addressed. Among others, the Sierra Leone government needs to allocate funding to the board. There have been assurances from the government that funding will be available when the Board is set up but no one has a clear idea of the amount of funding that the new board will need, although it is obvious that a significant amount of funding will be required in the beginning. Among other things, there is need for a building to host the secretariat. Once a building is available, it will need to be furnished with office equipment and supplies. A recruitment process would also need to be launched, contracts signed with service providers and partnerships struck. Once the secretariat is up and running, the core staff in collaboration with the Board will have the task of developing an implementation and financing strategy. While we expect the government to initially fund the bulk of the Board’s activities, it will also be important for the Board to think of some creative fundraising strategies. The contributions of Sierra Leone’s development partners would be helpful, as will the pro bono support of lawyers and other civil society organizations across the country.
It is important to recognize the progress that has been made, but there’s no doubt that a lot more needs to be done before indigent Sierra Leoneans can begin to receive the services of the Legal Aid Board. Here’s hoping that the services are made available sooner rather than later.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
In modern democracies, the police force has the primary responsibility of protecting lives and property as well as maintaining law and order. In conducting these functions, it must do so with absolute respect for the rights of citizens. Where a police force performs its functions independently, it becomes a source of confidence, safety and delight to all. The reverse may have adverse implications for the safety and security of persons, investment climate, as well as the country’s human rights credentials.
Prior to the civil conflict in the country, the Sierra Leone Police (SLP) were infamous for their egregious violations of human rights, mostly carried out on the orders of politicians. The one-party dictatorship produced a partisan police force that was used to repress opposition politicians and eliminate dissenting voices. Worse still, and perhaps part of the relic of the colonial administration, the force was largely alienated from the civilian population it was created to serve. Torture, extra-judicial killings, prolonged pre-trial detention and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment by the police reportedly occurred on a regular basis. Since the end of the conflict, however, there have been renewed efforts to rebrand the image of the police force in order to make it function in a manner that inspires public confidence and trust. New policing methods and training programs have been introduced, as well as progressive increases in budget allocations to the institution.
Unfortunately, recent allegations of unlawful killings and other serious human rights violations by the police have raised questions about the commitment of the leadership to foster accountability within the institution. Until a mechanism that truly holds police officers to the same standard of accountability as civilians is established, the public jury will continue to brood over the commitment of the SLP’s leadership to bring the institution in line with the requirements of 21st century policing.
Since December 2007, there has been a string of incidents of alleged unlawful killings by personnel of the Operational Support Division (OSD) of the SLP and, quite astonishingly, only one of the alleged perpetrators have been indicted and brought to justice. In December 2007, police personnel shot at demonstrators protesting against a diamond mining company in Koidu, eastern Sierra Leone, resulting in the death of two protesters. No police officer has been brought to justice for those killings. Another incident in September 2011 in which police personnel shot dead an unarmed motorcycle rider and wounded several others during politically-motivated violence in Bo has also passed without anyone brought to justice, despite a recommendation by Presidential Committee set up to investigate the incident. The civilians who were allegedly responsible for the acts of violence are currently facing trial, while the police personnel appear to have been protected from legal action. Another incident in which police personnel shot dead a woman and injured at least six others in Bumbuna, northern Sierra Leone, following a protest by mine workers was investigated by the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone (HRCSL), who recommended that the police “identify and investigate all personnel involved in the response” to the protest. The report of the HRCSL was impugned by the leadership of the police and (to date) most of its critical recommendations have not been implemented.
In 2012, two young men were shot dead by police personnel at Calaba Town, east of Freetown. The police claimed that their victims were mistaken for robbers, even though there is still no evidence that they were armed. The incident led to tension and skirmishes between youths and the police. At one point, it required the intervention of the President to pacify the angry youths. Again, no one has been held accountable for those killings. In the same year, another motorcycle rider was shot dead by police personnel at Goderich, west of Freetown. Again, the police claimed that the motorcycle rider was mistaken for a robber. The alleged perpetrator was later arrested and charged with murder, but the matter has been committed to the high court under the charge of manslaughter. There have also been alleged unlawful shooting incidents that lead to at least one death [again] in Koidu and Ferengbeya for which no serious investigations have been carried out, or alleged perpetrators brought to justice.
In May 2013, the police also shot dead a U.S-based Sierra Leonean who was on vacation in Sierra Leone because he allegedly refused to surrender a firearm he was carrying. Media interviews with bystanders revealed that the victim refused to hand over the firearm to the police, instead insisting that he would only “drop it” at a police station. As he was walking away, he reportedly fired two shots into the air. He was subsequently shot in the back by police personnel who had supposedly been sent to the scene to disarm the man. The matter is still being investigated, but the Inspectoral-General of Police has plainly justified the action of his officers. I would be surprised if any police officer was held accountable for the incident.
It is extremely disturbing that the state is overseeing such a widening impunity gap for the police, while other countries are closing such breaches in their law enforcement agencies. Impunity breeds illegality, which in turn fuels violence. Across the globe, the vogue nowadays is to promote accountability within the police and encourage increased civilian monitoring of the institution. The body that currently looks into complaints against the police, the Complaint Discipline and Internal Investigations Department (CDIID), consists exclusively of police personnel. While it has periodically taken disciplinary action against officers for professional misconduct, it has never truly investigated and published its findings on any of the serious human rights violations catalogued above.
Thankfully, the Internal Affairs Ministry in collaboration with the Sierra Leone Police is planning on introducing a bill for an Independent Police Complaints Board in parliament shortly. If the bill is passed into law, a civilian-run body would be established to fully investigate alleged police violations against civilians. The body would have the power, among others, to recommend prosecution for police officers deemed to have committed human rights violations; as well as offer compensation for such acts committed against civilians. Beyond this, it is also necessary to reform the legal framework of the police and amend the Constitution. The Police Charter of 1964 is clearly past its sell-by date, while the management structure of the police as stipulated in the Constitution is not compatible with the demands of modern democratic policing. These documents are currently contributing to the ever growing public doubt in the extent of the SLP’s independence. As long as the Vice President continues to preside over the Police Council – the highest decision-making body of the police – with the Internal Affairs Minister acting as his Secretary, it is hard to imagine the police functioning as a truly independent body.
Efforts at establishing an independent police complaints panel are, therefore, a laudable effort, but as with many brilliant initiatives in Sierra Leone, effective implementation will be a key challenge. If it is allowed to function as a truly independent complaints board, it could help tighten the impunity gap and restore public trust and confidence in the police.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
Age assessment is one of the growing problems facing the adjudication of juvenile-related cases. This particularly became imperative after the promulgation of the Child Rights Act 2007, which provides a definition of a child and the minimum age of criminal responsibility. Even today, the prosecuting and defence counsel face difficulties in establishing the age of ‘juvenile’ offenders who do not have a birth certificate. This usually results in long, protracted legal arguments between both parties. The number of alleged juvenile offenders who claim not to have a birth certificate in simply amazing, thus raising suspicion that the certificates are deliberately destroyed just so to create the full range of accountability measures for adults who come in conflict with the law.
The Government of Sierra Leone and other international human rights organizations have come up with a set of age assessment guidelines to salvage the situation where there is no birth certificate to ascertain the age of the Juvenile. While this process has been helpful a times, there are instances where it has proved to be unsuccessful as most times the medical age assessment report prepared by the Sierra Leone Police’s medical doctor for the court rely is unable to determine the actual age of the alleged offenders. The medical doctor undertakes age assessment by relying for the most part on physical and morphological features, including dental examination. This method is fraught with huge gaps as it has proven to be inadequate in accurately determining the age of a child.
It is so deficient that it has sadly given some accused persons an opportunity to escape justice. An example of such was a case involving an offender who was alleged to have committed murder, which is a serious crime that carries life imprisonment. According to the particulars of offence, the offender murdered his peer, who lived with them in the same house under the guardianship of the same person. This matter was reported to the Lumley Police Station, where a statement was obtained from the accused offender. In his statement, he said he was seventeen years old, which was faithfully recorded by the investigation officer. This account was also confirmed by their guardian, who had been taking care of both the deceased and alleged offender for a long time.
During the proceedings, Defense for Children International, a nongovernmental organization that monitors juvenile cases in court and also provides these offenders with the services of a lawyer, especially for serious crimes like murder, provided a lawyer for the alleged offender. The defense counsel submitted to the bench that the offender was below the age of 14 years, and therefore, below the age of criminal responsibility. The lawyer relied on Section 70 of the Child Right Act 2007 which states that “in any judicial proceeding in Sierra Leone, a child shall not be held to be criminally responsible for his action if he is below the age of fourteen years”. The police prosecutor that was handling the case objected to the application made by the defense counsel on the grounds that the case file before the court has the age of the offender stipulated as seventeen years. Since the offender does not have any birth certificate to prove his age before the court, the presiding Magistrate ruled that the offender be taken to the certified medical doctor for the Sierra Leone Police (which is not ideal in itself) for age assessment procedures to be administered. The age assessment report was very suspicious, to say the least. The report showed that the age of the offender was thirteen (13) years, thus allowing the Magistrate to discharge the alleged offender as he is not criminally liable before the law. This is simply unfortunate, and a step back in fostering accountability for such heinous crimes.
During the course of our monitoring, we have observed that there are serious gaps in following age assessment guidelines by police investigators. They are supposed to use both formal and informal method to ascertain the age of an offender, but in most cases, they just ask the offender for his or her age. They don’t further investigate if the offender is a school going child in order to cross check with the School administration about the age of the offender or use historic events to ascertain the age.
Another example relates to a case involving an offender at the Remand Home who told CARL that when he was in police custody, he told the officer that obtained statement from him that he is thirteen (13) years old, but the police officer challenged his own account and insisted that the boy is seventeen years old. The police officer allegedly failed to follow the methodology in the age assessment guidelines, and subsequently remanded the boy.
The Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law (CARL) seeks to draw the attention of the Sierra Leone Government, particularly the judiciary, the Social Welfare Ministry and the leadership of the Sierra Leone Police to the myriad issues confronting juvenile justice in Sierra Leone. These include limited remand home facilities across the country, weak age assessment systems, lack of effective rehabilitation systems, among others.
Accordingly, we recommend the following:
That police investigators should be the in the national age assessment guidelines. Although training was conducted for police officers relating to age assessment of juvenile offenders, it seems that because police officers get transferred all the time, there are now many officers who investigate alleged crimes relating to children who have never received any such training. Also, Police officer must thought it wise and be competent enough to follow the right procedure of age assessment.
There is also a pressing need for providing logistics to the Remand Home to help them do their job effectively. Logistics and equipment such as computers to input information concerning the offender for records keeping is extremely relevant.
There is also need to focus a bit more on the welfare and cognitive development of the kids in remand home. Neglecting them can only make their future bleak, which would have serious implications for national development efforts.
Page 7 of 16« First«...56789...»Last »
