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.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
Five months after the opposition Sierra Leone Peoples Party (SLPP) filed a petition challenging the authenticity of the outcome of November 17, 2012 Presidential elections, Sierra Leone’s Chief Justice finally constituted a panel of judges to hear the petition in April. While this action represents a bit of an improvement on the Court’s handling of a previous election-related petition in 2007 (when it took the Court almost five years to rule that a petition by the opposition SLPP had been wrongly filed), it is still not good enough. Let’s face it: our justice system must begin to respond to the justice needs of its people in a timely manner. An undue delay in hearing a petition is as good as an unnecessary delay in handing down a trial verdict. As the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court must lead by example, and should truly demonstrate its commitment to reducing the undue delays that still characterize the adjudication of cases across the country. In fact, there are still a number of election-related petitions before the High Court, five months after they were filed. Such delays negatively reflect on the justice system, and affect the country’s rule of law credentials.
CARL-SL carefully monitored the proceedings before the Supreme Court and now presents a comprehensive summary of the arguments by both sides.
The Supreme Court opened hearing on April 17. Lead counsel for the opposition SLPP, Dr Bubuaki Jabbie, raised a preliminary objection stating that the respondents (the National Electoral Commission and the APC) failed to comply with Supreme Court Rules 1982 and Rule 28(1) of the Election Petition Rules 2007 (herein after called E.P.R and the (EPR). His argument was that the respondents failed to file a reply to the notice of motion served on them within the 10 days period enshrined in the rule, and were not properly and duly before the court or lacked locus standi.
In reply, Barrister Barthan Macualey submitted that the Supreme Court rules are of general application and must give way to specific rules such as the E.P.R and the Public Election Act 2012 (P.E.A) and that the document which can be equated to entering of appearance which gives ‘locus standi’ is being selected or appointed by an agent under election petition rules (rules 8 and 7).
On April 18 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the respondents upholding their argument that “locus standi” is not dependent on the filing of a response but rather on a notice appointing a legal practitioner to act as an agent who shall give a written notice to that effect.
Subsequently, lawyers for the respondents urged the court to strike off the petition filed by the SLPP on grounds that it is invalid and void. The lawyer representing NEC, Glenna Thompson, raised the following points:
First, she submitted that the petitioners did not comply with Rule 6(1) of the E.P.R as service was irregular and not in accordance with this rule which requires that on presenting a petition the petitioners have to leave at the registry a notice signed by them or by their lawyers and the petition served should endorse the names of their lawyers.
Second, she submitted that Rule 12(1) of the same Act was not also complied with as the election petition was not served on the respondents within the 5 days stipulated by this rule, which is mandatory and not discretionary. She added that service must be personal, stating a ‘point of law’ to the effect that service at the respondents’ place of business is not personal service.
Third, she submitted that there was also non-compliance with Rule 14(1) of the Election Petition Rules, which requires that payments for cost and security should be done AT THE TIME OF PRESENTATION of the petition and not later. She submitted that filing is not in installments as the exhibits show that the payments were done on two separate days.
Finally, she submitted that the petition be struck off because when statutes are mandatory, they must be complied with failure of which makes the petition void and invalid. She added that there is nothing in the Election Petition Rules as “effective compliance” which they tend to rely on. She pointed out cases to the effect that a proper service is the foundation upon which a proceeding stands and once there is no service, there are no proceedings, adding a case in which a petition was struck off for non compliance.
The batch of 17 lawyers representing the APC, led by Barrister Berthan Macualey raised the following grounds for the petition to be struck off.
First, Barrister Barthan Macauley submitted that in applying the Interpretation Act to Section 55(1) of the E.P.R, which requires that the petition be filed within 7 days, the 7th day expired on November 30 2012. However, the petitioners in filing their petition and paying their fees went out of this period, and so the proceedings should be nullified.
Second, the crux of their contention was to the effect that the petitioners failed to make Dr Ernest Bai Koroma a party to the proceedings, and cited over four cases relating to the legal consequences of not making a successful candidate a party to an election petition. The dictum of one was to the effect that he is the most necessary and crucial party to the proceedings and failure to mention his name makes the petition incompetent and cannot be proceeded upon.
It was also his submission that from the wordings of 14(1) E.P.R, each petitioner has to pay security for cost being Le1 million (One million Leones or approximately $230) and not a joint payment as was the case. He submitted that the petitioners also failed to comply with 14(1) as the recognizance entered into or the alternative Le1 million paid. He further cited cases to show the rules are mandatory and not directory, and so must be complied with, failure of which the proceedings have to be struck off.
Finally, he cited authorities and submitted that paragraph 7 of the petition be struck off as any challenge of an election nomination has to be by way of Originating notice of motion and should not be included in a challenge of an election petition which comes to court by way of a petition. He added that the petitioners are time-barred to object to the election nomination.
On April 23, in response to calls to strike off the proceedings, the petitioners started by dealing with the issue of time computation as it was alleged that the petition was filed outside the 7 days statutory period. Dr Bubuakie Jabbie, based on Rules 98 of the Supreme Court Rules, invoked Orders 3R(2)(2) and Oders3R(2)(5) of the High court Rules 2007 which is to the effect that in computing time when the period is 7 days or less, Saturdays and Sundays should be excluded. Hence it was their submission that Friday the 30th was the 5th day within the 7-day statutory period. It was also their submission that the petition was deemed to have been issued within 7 days upon it being received by the Supreme Court Registry referring the court to Order 9R2(2) and R2(2) of the High Court Rules and R5(2) and 5(4) of the E.P.R.
Lawyer Banja-Tejansie submitted that with respect to all procedural or formal rules which form the bases of the 1st and 2nd respondents’ objection re non-compliance to wit Rules 5(1), 6(1), 12, 13 and 14 of the E.P.R 2007, they are merely directory in force or effect and not mandatory by virtue of Rule 98 of the Supreme Court Rules 1982, Rule 52 AND 53 of the E.P.R and order 2 Rule 1 of the H.C.R 2007, which expressly state that failure to comply with the rules shall be treated as an irregularity and shall not nullify the proceedings, citing Mont Plc Railway Co.
They admitted non-compliance to Rule 6(1) E.P.R but canvassed the discretion of the bench as was exercised in the Moses Condolla’s case. It was their contention that sub Rule 2 of Rule 6 of the E.P.R renders R6(1) directory and not mandatory, citing a quotation of a Judge in the Moses Condolla case to the effect that rules of court are meant to regulate the procedure and practice in the courts in Sierra Leone and should not be construed as mandatory. He submitted that they rely on this case to argue all grounds raised by the 1st and 2nd respondents to the effect that the rules are mandatory and any non-compliance should defeat the petition.
Dr Bubuake Jabbie stated that there has been a progressive evolution both in statute and case law from strict adherence to procedural technicalities to emphasize on substantive justice since the Court of Appeals decisions in PC Tamba S. Brewa and PC Dudu Bona followed by the 1993 decision in the Moses Condolla’s case and culminating the E.P.R 2007 and the H.C.R 2007
He also submitted that the election of the President and the legitimacy of that election is so important that its importance cannot be overemphasized. He added that the President and his Vice are the only two persons that represent all the voters and constituencies in this country and taking cognizance of the general interest and importance of Presidential elections, no formal objection to time, place, manner, form or content or in any other respect can nullify the proceedings.
He noted that the Dr Ernest Bai Koroma ought not to have contested and the subsequent election of him thereof ought not to have occurred as it was in contradiction of Section 35(4) & 76(1)(8) of the 1991 Constitution. Section 35(4) of the Constitution is to the effect that no political party shall have as a leader a person who is not qualified to be Member of Parliament. He said though this was time barred, Section 127(1) of the same Constitution makes constitutional objections immune to be time-barred. Hence order 2 of the 3rd and 4th respondent applicants’ Notice of Motion is void and of no effect.
In reply, the respondents reiterated their call for the Court to discharge the matter.
Barrister Barthan Macualey submitted that what is before the court is to construe Election Petition Rules and come to the conclusion whether they are mandatory or directory. It was his submission that the cases cited and relied upon by his learned friend has no relevance whatever to the issue under determination in the instant situation. He therefore adopted the argument of Lawyer Glenna Thompson to the effect that failure to comply with rules make the whole process a nullity as stated in order 2 Rule 1 of the 199 Supreme Court Practice.
He further submitted that his learned friends could not merely rely on Rule 52 of the Election Petition Rules to the effect that no proceedings under the Act shall be defeated by a formal objection. He said they failed to cite authorities to show that the objection taken by them in relation to Rules 5, 12 and 14 was a formal one. He further said they have submitted cases to the effect that the objection taken by them was not a formal one.
It was his submission that in order to save any non compliance from being declared void, then there has to be substantive compliance by the party in breach. “It is not sufficient to simply rely on a proposition of law but one has to free himself within that proposition”, he argued.
Ne also submitted that an election petition is ‘sui generis’ (unique) and should be differentiated from an ordinary civil proceedings which cannot be instituted against the President as provided by the Constitution. It was also his submission that it will be inequitable an undemocratic if the President is immune to an Election Petition as it will mean he can do anything, however, illegal during the election and can’t be challenged in court. He said if the contentions of the petitioners are admitted, then no useful purpose is being served by these proceedings as any judgment or pronouncement by the court will not affect the position of the President, Dr Ernest Bai Koroma; and it is in this regard that they say the petition is incompetent and is flawed ab initio (from beginning) and should be struck off accordingly.
Finally, it was his submission that Part 7 of the petition is very clear and it deals with the fact that Dr Ernest Bai Koroma ought not to be nominated as a Presidential candidate. He said the submission that it was mistakenly construed by them is not correct. He said he completely agreed with his learned friend that Constitutional provisions are not time barred but the substantive matter before the court is an Election Petition and objections to nomination are brought to court by way of originating notice of motion and not by way of Petition and it is also statute-barred.
While the five members of the bench consider a decision, CARL would further like to urge the judiciary to ensure that matters of this nature (which attract so much interest from the public) are broadcast live on the national broadcaster as well as independent radio networks. The Ghanaian example where the Court allowed the national television to fully broadcast such proceedings should be emulated. In Guinea, too, proceedings relating to alleged attacks on the President are being broadcast on the national television. This would help make it a genuine public hearing, while at the same time reducing overcrowding, demonstrations, and other security concerns.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
Trocaire, the Irish funded non-governmental organization, in partnership with the Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law (CARL), has embarked on a programme to increase “women’s access to justice” in the Northern Province of Sierra Leone. The overarching goal of the programme is to help protect women’s rights and increase community awareness about gender-related laws. The choice of region was informed by a baseline report that identified the Northern Province to be among the places with the highest prevalence of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) in the country.
During the early implementation phase of the project, there was considerable emphasis on community sensitization regarding laws that protect women and girls, raising awareness about SGBV, and undertaking strategic advocacy for better policies and laws that protect women and girls. Part of the reason was that it would have been almost impossible to change a perennially conservative attitude of a predominantly male society towards women if strong efforts were not made to sponsor public education programmes on gender and women’s rights. Perhaps, the conservative attitude towards women partly explains why there was such a high level of acceptability of SGBV in communities that CARL currently works.
There are persisting challenges, of course, but clearly some changes are happening in the various communities. This year, CARL has successfully mobilized men and women in the 12 project communities to work together with the aim of preventing and addressing SGBV. We have also partnered with court and police officials to help implement the project. Although these groups have contributed to ongoing efforts to enhance protection for women and girls in no small measure, there was need to harness untapped resources which could be of immense contribution to achieving the objective of the project. An example of such untapped resources is traditional leaders, who still carry immense respect and authority in their communities. Their influence hinges on the fact that they play a key role in community development initiatives; help define customary laws; and reach communities through different means, including community meeting or dialogue sessions.
In spite of their immense influence and authority, CARL recently found that local authorities were being grossly under-utilized with respect to combatting SGBV at community level. In some ways, it seems like traditional leaders have been a missing link in ongoing efforts to address SGBV. This is why CARL is now making strong efforts to make traditional leadership an integral part of the overall strategy of addressing SGBV.
In order to strengthen community-based initiatives and to understand the potential role of traditional leaders in the prevention of SGBV, a series of workshops were held in three chiefdoms in the Bombali District: Bombali Shebura, Makarie Gbanti, and Paki Masongbo Chiefdoms, with 30 participants from each chiefdom. These communities were selected based on the SGBV prevalence level. The workshops also provided information on the state of SGBV in the various communities, thus highlighting the need for a multi-sectoral approach to addressing SGBV, and the binding role traditional leaders can play in the prevention of SGBV in their respective communities. For far too long, traditional authorities have been suspicious of efforts to protect the rights of women, sometimes claiming that such efforts seek to undermine the custom and ethos of their societies. They had considered, and many still think of such efforts as an attempt to undermine the social fabric of the society. Patriarchy still partly accounts for gender-based violence. For instance, wearing miniskirts or refusing your partner’s sexual advances could be a justification for a man to beat up his wife.
But this attitude is gradually changing, thanks to ongoing efforts to educate both men and women about women’s rights as well as get them to play a major role in combating violence against women. Some chiefs have made public undertaking to impose stiff fines for minor offences against women such as insults. They have also vowed not to ever enable out-of-court settlements for serious incidents of SGBV. Many have also indicated their willingness to support and participate in social mobilization campaigns in and around their communities. Female community leaders are also willing to join in. Women’s leaders are also helping to create an enabling environment for increased reporting, referral and support of SGBV cases in their communities.
The willingness of traditional leaders to occupy the frontline in the fight against SGBV creates so much hope. With constant engagement and further education programmes, traditional authorities could provide a big fillip in ongoing efforts to combat SGBV at the community level.
