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.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
In 2004, Sierra Leone reintroduced local councils after a thirty-year hiatus. Section 20 of The Local Government Act states that “local councils shall be the highest political authority in the locality and shall have legislative and executive powers…and shall be responsible, generally for promoting the development of the locality and the welfare of the people in the locality with the resources at its disposal and with such resources and capacity as it can mobilize from the central government and its agencies, national and international organizations and the private sector”.
To ensure that development and democratic credentials are enhanced, the Act provides for participation and transparent administration of local councils. Accordingly, Section 107 of the Act requires local councils to post on a notice board, in a conspicuous place on the premises of the local councils in each ward, monthly statements of financial accounts, development plans and minutes of meetings among others. Section 108 also places an obligation on the Ministry of Local Government to “promote participatory processes in local councils and encourage citizens’ involvement in governance”. Nine years years after the law was promulgated, implementation is still a key challenge.
In January 2013, the Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law (CARL) received a grant from Open Society Initiative West Africa (OSIWA) to undertake a project aimed at monitoring the implementation of Sections 107 and 108 of the Local Government Act in six districts across the country. The project, Local Government Accountability and Citizens Participation in Local Councils, for the most part seeks to improve citizens’ knowledge and participation in governance, particularly at the local level. Some of the strategies include recruiting and training community-based monitors to ensure that there is regular flow of information from the councils to the public, and to monitor that Ward Development Committees are fully constituted.
As part of the project, the Freetown City Council (FCC) and CARL in May organized a joint-training session for at least 25 ward committee members representing 16 wards in the Western Area. The training modules focused on the functions of local councils, role of Ward Development Committees, and the core governance values of accountability, transparency and participation. In addition, the modules covered civic education and volunteerism. As part of the burgeoning partnership between CARL and the FCC, CARL monitored a majority of the elections for the Ward Development Committees to see whether the processes were transparent, fair and competitive. Indeed, FCC provided an enabling environment for all of our monitors to be as involved as necessary. CARL has also partnered with FCC to participate in radio programs and community outreach meetings funded and organized by each other. This partnership with local councils goes beyond Freetown to include Bo, Makeni, Kenema, and Pujehun.
While there are still several challenges relating to participation and open governance, some recent developments are heart-warming. Through the CARL-sponsored consultative conferences with local councils, for instance, CARL was able to know about the concrete steps councils are taking to address some of the perennial challenges relating to participation and transparency. At the Freetown City Council, for example, we have seen documents to the effect that a budget of Le14,375,000 (approximately $3,000) budget has been proposed to erect notice boards in all forty-nine (49) wards in the Freetown City Council. Once it is approved, it is hoped that they’ll be erected in June, 2013. In Kenema, due to increased advocacy efforts by our partner, both the Kenema City Council and Kenema District Council have approached IFAD to support the construction of offices for councillors in each ward. Part of the plan is to have noticeboards in each ward office. Community monitors have started sending reports, mostly via SMS, suggesting that while very few notice boards have been erected, there are now increasing discussions at ward level about the need to engage local council administrators on various matters such as participation, transparency and development.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
As part of efforts to strengthen the administration of justice in Sierra Leone, there have been significant efforts since the end of the conflict by the Sierra Leone Government and the international community to reform the justice sector. As part of the ongoing reform efforts, training programmes have been organised for personnel of the Sierra Leone judiciary. There has also been a slight improvement in conditions of service for both judicial and support staff, while some sections of the judiciary have received logistics and technical support. Ultimately, the goal is to strengthen the institutional capacity of the judiciary, while at the same time enhancing access to justice for Sierra Leoneans. In spite of these commendable efforts, there are persisting challenges that need to be addressed.
One of the issues that need to be addressed without delay is the need to strengthen citizens’ access to public hearings, particularly in the main court building in Freetown. Section 23(3) of the 1991 constitution of Sierra Leone states that “All proceedings of every court and proceedings relating to the determination of the existence or the extent of civil rights or obligations before any court or other authority, including the announcement of the decision of the court or other authority shall be held in public…”
CARL-SL’s Court Monitors have over the years observed that litigants and members of the public have encountered difficulty in following court proceedings because of noise around the court building and the absence of a public address system. In the absence of a public address system, it is very difficult for even the lawyers and judges to hear each other, not to mention members of the public gallery. If the lawyers and the Judges find it so difficult to hear each other, how can litigants and the public follow the proceedings? This situation needs to be addressed without delay as it somewhat adversely affects litigants’ access to the full range of discussions during the proceedings. Members of the public also go to court either because their family members are involved with a case or are generally interested in a particular matter. They have a right to follow the proceedings so that they can lend credence to the outcome of the proceedings. Public trials are so called because members of the public must be able to follow the proceedings as well as gain access to court documents. In the corruption-related trial involving the State V. Kimbe and others, prosecuting and defence counsel could hardly hear the Judge, much less the accused persons or members of the public who came to witness the trials.
The need for a public address system was made even more glaring when the Supreme Court convened to hear the 2012 Presidential election-related petition filed by the opposition Sierra Leone People’s Party. The matter was heard on five separate days, and on each day, the court room was filled to the brim with people milling around the court building trying to get a glimpse of the courtroom. Even those who were in the courtroom found it difficult to follow the proceedings, while those outside could have been better served if the proceedings were broadcast on state television or on local radio networks. Even a delayed broadcast would have helped reduce the tension and anxiety during that period. In fact, an unfortunate security incident involving the police and persons described as supporters of the opposition Sierra Leone People’s Party left some people wounded, while others were incarcerated for breaching security protocols.
CARL-SL urges the leadership of the judiciary to undertake concrete efforts aimed at equipping the courtrooms with good public address systems in order to enhance genuine public hearings, particularly in the main court building. At the moment, many litigants and family members leave the courtroom without having understood a chunk of what was said. In fact, some keep asking their lawyers after each hearing questions relating to date of adjournment, among others. Outside Freetown, many court building s need a facelift. Some of the court buildings, including the Makeni Magistrate Court, are not only decrepit, their location also affects the proceedings. The local court buildings are perhaps the most embarrassing public buildings in the country. CARL has often made a case for the need to enhance public confidence in the way the justice system works, and the judiciary can take a major leap forward by not only reducing delays in proceedings, refurbishing court buildings and improving conditions of service for its employees, but by setting up public address systems in the court buildings, particularly in Freetown.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
The Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law (CARL) and its partners have extended a project that seeks to promote transparency and citizens’ participation in local councils to two districts in the Southern and Northern provinces. The USD$35,000 project, funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), will be implemented by CARL, the Centre for Democracy and Human Rights, and the Network Support for Peace Education in the Moyamba and Koinadugu districts. Essentially, the project aims at empowering citizens to be able to monitor local government activities as well as the implementation of annual development plans.
More than nine years since the Local Government Act was promulgated, local councils have not been able to bring about one of its intended effects, which is to give local citizens ownership over development programmes in their communities. This project seeks to work with councils and locals to address some of the persisting challenges relating to transparency, participation and accountability at the local level. The basis of the project is that if citizens are given platforms and opportunities to directly engage local council officials, they will have the ability to spur greater transparency from the councils and give their input into the community development agenda.
As part of the project, CARL and its partners will recruit and train community-based monitors to regularly monitor notice boards and messages in their various communities, organize media and community outreach events, and promote increased interaction between councillors, Ward Committees and local residents.
There are still challenges that need to be addressed, but we absolutely recognize some of the positive strides that are taking place within some of the councils. There is an opportunity with the new batch of councillors and administrators, and we will seize the chance.
This project is similar to the OSIWA-funded project which is implemented in six different districts across the country. This project was developed in order to reach out to more communities across the country.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
While Sierra Leone is generally considered as one of the success stories of post-conflict countries that have made enormous strides at building democratic institutions as well as attracting foreign direct investments, it needs to do a lot more to bolster its rule of law credentials. Democracy thrives on a number of pillars, but perhaps the strongest one is the rule of law. In a country where the rule of law is not effectively administered, injustice, incidents of violence, fraudulent elections, and economic crimes are more likely to occur with impunity. As Sierra Leone inches away from its recent, inglorious history through economic and infrastructure development, it cannot afford to ignore the imposing demands for strengthening national accountability mechanisms. Sierra Leone’s rule of law credentials are clearly not the worst on the continent, but
increased government investment as well as legal reforms to make democratic institutions function more independently of the executive arm of government are required to address some of the immediate challenges confronting them.
The World Justice Project (WPJ) defines rule of law as “…a system in which no one, including government, is above the law; where laws protect fundamental rights; and where justice is accessible to all.” WPJ provides a number of rule of law indices, including limited government powers, absence of corruption, order and security, fundamental rights, open government, regulatory enforcement, civil and criminal justice, and informal justice.
Even a cursory look at these indices in relation to Sierra Leone would give an indication of how far the country has come, but how much more ground it needs to cover. While there have been some limited gains in combating corruption, maintaining a measure of law and order, and respecting some fundamental rights of citizens, there are still immense challenges to confront. Apart from the palpable sense of extensive executive control over just about every state institution as well as pervasive corruption both in the public and private sector, there are also serious concerns relating to the administration of civil and criminal justice, violation of some critical regulatory frameworks (including mineral laws), inadequate funding of state institutions, inchoate professional standards in public institutions, to name but a few.
Sierra Leone’s judiciary needs massive help. First off, the judiciary needs to address the public perception gap that exists. There’s increasing public suspicion that the judiciary is not truly independent of the executive arm. The perceived lack of judicial independence is stimulated by a number of factors, including the somewhat uncomfortable relationship between the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice and the judiciary. As Attorney-General, the holder of that office performs a professional function by advising the government on all legal matters relating to agreements, prosecutions and drafting. S/he, however, performs a political function when he sits in cabinet as a government minister, while he is also expected to serve as a liaison between the government and the judiciary. Pursuant to Section 120 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone, the Chief Justice is the head of the judiciary, and presides over the panel of justices of the Supreme Court. Whereas the Attorney General and Minister of Justice represents the state on all legal matters before the courts, he also has a political duty to liaise between the government and the judiciary. That official relationship or interaction between the two bodies could be dangerous. The fusion of both offices was influenced by the unwholesome emergencies of a one-party state. There should be no argument about the need to decouple the current structure as part of our ongoing efforts to transform state institutions. Section 120(3) further states that in the exercise of its judicial function, the judiciary shall be subject only to the Constitution or any other law, and not to the authority or direction of any other person or authority. To bolster its professional independence, there is need to create a mechanism whereby the judiciary can begin to present and justify its budget before the parliament of Sierra Leone or to the Finance Ministry: At the moment, it is the Justice Ministry, headed by the same person who serves as Attorney-General, which submits the final annual budget for the judiciary and the Justice Ministry to the Finance Department. Of course, it does so in consultation with the judiciary. But what is essentially wrong in allowing a whole arm of government to independently prepare its own budget? We need to have a judiciary that prepares its own budget, based on its most pressing needs, and be given the opportunity to defend it before parliament, if needs be. This is because it would enhance the possibility of increased funding to the judiciary, as well as make the judiciary financially independent of the Ministry of Justice.
The need to increase funding to the judiciary cannot be over-emphasized. The judiciary still faces serious funding gaps. In 2009, for example, the entire budget for the Sierra Leone judiciary was just one twentieth of the Special Court’s budget for the trial of one man – former Liberian President Charles Taylor. If that doesn’t sound like a realistic comparison, then take a look at the 2013 national budget to discover that the judiciary is not among the first four biggest receivers of state funds. In fact, it received only about 1% of the national budget. It is also rumoured that the amount of money allocated to judiciary in 2013 was even less than what it generated from the state in fines and other sources in 2012. And, the judiciary is quite frankly taking its revenue generation task very seriously. I recently paid Le45,000 (approximately $10) for a 20-page copy of a judgement. That’s serious!
To be able to respond to the justice needs of the vast majority of Sierra Leoneans, the judiciary needs to recruit more legal officers, improve conditions of service, and provide training opportunities for its staff, including judges and Magistrates. At the moment, there is a dearth of judicial officers, particularly in the countryside. For most of the provinces, the judiciary operates a circuit system which means that in Bombali District, for example, a single Magistrate covers three judicial districts. This affects citizens’ access to justice while at the same time violating the constitutional rights of accused persons to be arraigned before a court without delay.
Sierra Leone’s rule of law credentials will continue to stagger unless corruption, particularly the public sector is reduced to an absolute minimum. The efforts of Sierra Leone’s anti-graft agency are acknowledged, but everyone recognizes that the agency can’t do it alone. In fact, its efforts appear to be a drop in the ocean. Imagine the amount of money the ACC recovers annually on behalf of the state, and assume that perhaps at least 70% of stolen public funds go unnoticed. One of the ways to stem the rising level of corruption in the public service is to undertake a broad systems review across all sectors with the view to developing or building structures that make corruption much more onerous. The Anti-Corruption Commission had begun such reviews, but there is currently no update on the status of it. The government must also move beyond its publicly stated commitment to combating corruption by being more transparent in disclosing information on mining deals and income from mining and other sources of income, procurement deals, budget development, among others. A freedom of information law would be a good step forward, but effective implementation will continue to be a bigger challenge. A citizens budget has been launched, which is quite laudable, but a lot more needs to be done to give real meaning to the concept of inclusive and participatory public finance management.
In subsequent editions, I’ll focus on corruption and the security sector a bit more, but for now, it is clear that the people of Sierra Leone deserve a lot more than what’s on offer. There is great appetite for institutional and constitutional reforms in this country. You can sense that by just talking to people. It is time to do the right thing by every Sierra Leonean. When democratic institutions function effectively, everyone benefits, regardless of their social, economic or political status. When they malfunction or are made to malfunction, only a few people “benefit”. Sierra Leone’s economic development and democratic aspirations cannot be achieved unless the institutionalized rule of law is strengthened. Rule of law is absolutely critical to making prosperous and fair societies possible. Let’s march to genuine prosperity by stepping up our commitment to the values and principles of rule of law.
