Nearly two years after the Sierra Leone Parliament promulgated the Local Courts Act, senior officials of the Sierra Leone Judiciary traveled to the provinces in the week of March 17 to formally launch the ‘new’ local court system. The Local Courts Act 2011 effectively ended nearly five decades of political oversight of local courts. The transfer of oversight functions of local courts from the Ministry of Local Government to the office of the Chief Justice is arguably the most important provision of the new law. This transfer means that local courts are no longer under the supervision of the Ministry of Local Government but rather under the judiciary, an arm of government responsible for the administration of justice. Equally important, the law unifies the justice system by ending decades of legal dualism in Sierra Leone, where a distinction was made between formal and the so-called informal justice systems. Although the local court system is now part of the judiciary, it is still required to apply customary law in the adjudication of cases.
The transfer of oversight functions over the local courts from the Ministry of Local Government to the Office of the Chief Justice is arguably the most important provision of the new law, but it also makes other significant provisions. It provides for the establishment of Local Court Service Committee, which advises on issues relating to appointment, promotion, transfer, suspension and dismissal of local court officers. The Act also revised the jurisdiction of local courts to bring their mandate and sentencing guidelines in line with the needs of the communities, capacity of local court personnel, and most importantly, the ends of justice. Deepening democracy, rule of law and accountability system in the country would depend on an effective justice service delivery mechanism.
At the launch programme in Bo, Southern Sierra Leone which was attended by many state principals, Chief Justice Umu Hawa Tejan-Jalloh could not have put it better when she said the bed rock of all democratic societies is peace and justice, which is critical to ensuring stability and prosperity. The local courts will continue to be an important part of the national justice system. In addition to the large number of citizens who need its services, local courts are obviously more accessible at chiefdom level; they are cheap, and their procedures quicker and clearer. Furthermore, their jurisdiction to hear land, customary marriage, succession and family disputes which occur with more frequency in rural localities than other types of cases sets them apart.
Strengthening the relevance of the local courts would require effective implementation of the full range of the Local Courts Act. The challenges that confront the implementation process were not lost on the Chief Justice when she addressed the gathering in Bo. She said there are over 300 local courts that need improvements in order to bring them in line with international standards. Once those improvements are completed, she said, the various customary laws may be codified and passed on in more concrete forms to future generations. That would be a huge achievement, without doubt, but for now, the judiciary will need to address the immediate challenges facing the local courts. Among those challenges include effective implementation of the key provisions of the new law. For instance, there is need to step up efforts at reconstituting the courts based on the criteria set out in the new law as most of the current court chairmen were appointed under the old law. The offices of the State Counsel and Customary Law Officer were merged some years ago and would be advisable, in the interest of justice, to dissolve the merger so that the Law Officers Department would be kept separate customary law, which is now part of the judiciary. Also, while the National Revenue Authority (NRA) has started collecting funds generated by local courts through fines, the courts still face a serious funding gap. To foster effective administration of justice at all levels, adequate financial support should be provided to institutions of justice for logistics and other services. During a monitoring tour to the Southern Province in 2012 by the Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law, it was discovered that some Local Court chairmen had gone for nearly eight months without salaries. The conditions of service were extremely poor (and have not changed at all), thus creating a distasteful appetite for malpractices by court officials. Some of the officials were frank enough to have admitted that money which should have otherwise been handed over to the NRA are sometimes used for personal purposes because salaries are not only low but are paid irregularly. It was also observed that courtroom facilities were poor, while staff morale was exceedingly low. The capacity of court personnel is another huge challenge that needs to be addressed. Obviously, the most important criteria for court personnel, particularly the chairmen and their panel of assessors is to be knowledgeable in the customs of the chiefdom and be able to speak the predominant local language in the area. Even so, there is massive need for training in the law from which the court draws its mandate. Many court officials interviewed had only a vague idea the Local Courts Act 2011, much less the court’s jurisdictional limits. This obviously affects their ability and the integrity of the process.
It was perhaps heartening to have heard the Chief Justice mentioning the appointment of a seven-member ‘Implementation Committee’, including Paramount Chiefs and officials from the justice sector, charged with the responsibility of leading efforts for the implementation the Act or setting up the structures stipulated in the law. It is recommended that the Committee fully assess the critical aspects relating to the smooth functioning of the local courts and proffer recommendations with the view to overcoming any challenges associated with them.
The launch of the new local court system certainly represents an important step forward in implementing the new Act, even if came later than most people had expected. Going forward, the Implementation Committee will need to move quickly on issues relating to the appointment of Court Chairmen along the guidelines in the new law, proffer meaningful recommendations relating to conditions of service, capacity building programmes, and improving court facilities. Some of the challenges cannot be addressed right now, CARL expects genuine and strong efforts for solution every day.
