The Native Administrative court, also known as local court of Sierra Leone, derives its authority from the Local Courts Act, 1963; the Courts Act, 1965 and Section 170 of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone which deals with the laws of Sierra Leone. The said Section states, amongst others, that the laws of Sierra Leone shall comprise “rules of customary law including those determined by the Superior Court of Judicature”; and “customary law” means “the rules of law which by custom are applicable to particular communities in Sierra Leone”. Thus, the Native Administrative courts are legally constituted to dispense justice in accordance with the cultural, social and traditional setting of their different communities. This traditional court system underscores Sierra Leone’s dual judicial system comprising both the formal and informal; the formal system deals with matters of general law applicable in the magistrate’s court, the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court; whereas the informal system is mainly preoccupied with issues arising out of customary law. In addition, whereas the dispensation of justice in the general law courts is determined by legal procedures and principles based on standards sanctioned by law, decisions in the local courts are primarily based on existing orally transmitted norms of the different customs and communities. In essence, customary laws are largely unwritten.
The local court is comprised of a chairman, vice chairman and other ordinary members or assessors (also known as council of elders), and officers including clerks and bailiffs who carry out administrative duties and assist in the execution of court orders. It is presided over by a Chairman, who is assisted by a Vice-Chairman and such other members as may be appointed by the Minister of Local Government (the Minister). The said Minister is also empowered to appoint Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
The Native Administration Court has limited jurisdiction in both criminal and civil cases, and determines matters which fall within its territorial limits – the chiefdom. It serves as a medium to punish law breakers; have aggrieved parties compensated adequately as well as amicably settle disputes within the chiefdom, especially those that pertain to land tenure and ownership, marriage, and succession or inheritance. Proceeds from fines levied against disputing parties are supposed to be used for community development. The majority of Sierra Leoneans are governed by customary law. Yet, very little attention is paid to the workings of the local court. The proceedings in these courts are marred by many deficiencies which seriously undermine both the administration of justice and the traditional values that initially gave rise to their establishment. This piece seeks to examine some of the challenges encountered in litigating in a local court, and attempts to make suggestions for meaningful reform.
Proceedings
The conduct of proceedings in the Native Administration court is often held in an unfriendly atmosphere characterized by fear and intimidation. Court officials are notorious for intimidating parties by frequently shouting at them, thereby creating panic and despondence. Litigants, therefore, are usually nervous while testifying. The situation is even worse for women who come before the courts as either witnesses or victims. Due to the uncongenial atmosphere and the fact that proceedings are almost always held in open sessions (even where children are involved), litigants are mostly hesitant to testify.
It is even worse with cases relating to sexual violence: victims of rape feel ashamed and inhibited to explain the full extent of the violations they suffered. This has the unfortunate consequence of negatively affecting the outcome of the entire process. Thus, a good number of people, including women, have resorted to using the “Chiefs’ Courts” or illegally established “Kangaroo courts” by local chiefs which tend to arrogate to themselves far reaching jurisdiction than the statutorily established local court.
Untimely adjournments of hearings caused by strepitus judicialis (disruptive behavior in court) also accounts for avoidable delays. The continuous movement of court officers within and around the court premises distracts the attention of Chairmen and Assessors from adjudicating properly. From time to time, Councilors and Chiefdom Committee Members would come around the courtroom and speak in chambers with court officers during sessions, thus in some way undermining the integrity of hearings. At times, when court officers retire to chambers, they may not show up to continue sessions and that might be the end of the day’s proceedings.
Jurisdictional Issues
The Native Administration Court has competence over all civil matters covered by customary law and those governed by general law, where the claim does not exceed Le 250,000 (approximately $58). This provision is sometimes applied Mutatis Mutandis. Local courts also have competence in criminal cases where the sentence does not exceed six months or fine does not exceed Le50, 000 (approximately $12). However, the courts do not always adhere to this statutory provision stricti juris; that is, according to the exact law. The courts often adjudicate in cases that do not fall within their competence. For instance, at the Local Court No. l in Kakua Chiefdom, Bo district, a lady (name withheld) was summoned for failing to pay a debt amounting to Le 747,000. Legally, this matter falls outside the jurisdiction of the local court. But because of limited jurisdictional knowledge about the court on the part of the litigants, the matter was adjudicated upon in the court. This example is illustrative of how many courts adjudicate myriad of cases that are not within their jurisdiction.
The Courts of Paramount Chiefs
Additionally, paramount chiefs also create their own courts to try matters that are sometimes above the jurisdiction of local courts. Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Courts Act, paramount chiefs have no business in setting up courts to hear matters. Their duties are purely administrative and not judicial. However, most paramount chiefs establish a committee known as Council of Elders who assists them in running these courts. These courts are not only illegal but also undermine the authority of the local courts Most of the cases adjudicated by the paramount chiefs are only given a different nomenclature often as family matters so as to give them the ‘mandate’ to sit and adjudicate such matters. It is surprising and ironical to note that the fines levied in such courts far outweigh those levied in the legally established courts, with no checks and balances as to how proceeds are spent. That besides, almost all court chairmen often decline to adjudicate matters that have once been settled by paramount chiefs in order not to annoy them.
Recommendations
Since majority of Sierra Leoneans use this system, it is important that it also benefits from reforms currently taking place in the justice sector. This is primarily because the tendency for abuse of authority is more susceptible in local courts than in the general law courts. This is partly because customary laws are mostly unwritten, and mainly because majority of the people who use them do not know the limitation of their authority. Furthermore, the bulk of local court users are not even aware of the rights provided them under customary law such as the right to appeal to the Customary Law Officer in the district. In addition, most of the local court officers do not have the basic knowledge regarding the operations of the country’s legal system in general. To this end, public education on human rights, particularly those relating women’s and children’s rights, should be undertaken. In addition, courses in legal provisions, human rights and contemporary legal techniques should be regularly done as these trainings will help enhance their judicial performance. There should also be constant outreach activities in communities on the jurisdiction of the court, procedures and rights of parties in a law suit.
Efforts by CARL-SL:
To help address these challenges, the Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law (CARL-SL) has over the last three years held numerous training programmes for local court officials and civil society groups. Thanks to TROCAIRE and other funding agencies, CARL-SL conducts regular outreach and radio discussion programmes aimed at educating Sierra Leoneans about the work and limitations of the local court systems, as well as the challenges that confront them. CARL believes that if customary law is to remain a viable component of the laws of Sierra Leone, the recommendations proffered above should be given serious thought by all stakeholders in the justice sector.
