Introduction
The Native Administration Courts, also known as the Local Courts of Sierra Leone were established pursuant to the Local Courts Act, 1963; the Court Act, 1965 and Sec. 170 (2) & (3) of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone. Sec 170 (2) states that, “the Common Law of Sierra Leone shall comprise of the rules of law generally known as the Common Law,…and the rules of Customary Law including those determined by the Superior Court of Judicature”. Sec. 170 (3) further states that, the Customary Law of Sierra Leone refers to those laws which by custom are applicable to particular communities in Sierra Leone. This, therefore, qualifies the Local Courts of Sierra Leone to dispense justice in accordance with the cultural, social and traditional settings of their different communities. It is also indicative of Sierra Leone’s dual judicial system, as it is comprised of the national courts under the general law which is applicable in the Magistrate, High, Appeals and Supreme Courts and the Native Administration Courts, which administer justice by virtue of customs and traditions. While the dispensation of justice in the national courts is determined by legal judgment based on anti-social behaviour sanctioned by the state, decisions in the local courts are primarily based on the existing orally transmitted norms of the different communities. In essence, customary laws are largely unwritten.
The main composition of local courts includes the Chairman, Court Clerk and Assessors (also known as Council of Elders). The Native Administration Courts serves as a medium to punish law breakers; have aggrieved parties compensated adequately as well as amicably settle chiefdom disputes, especially those that pertain to land. Proceeds from fines levied against disputing parties are supposed to be used on community matters.
Majority of Sierra Leoneans are governed by customary law. However, the proceedings in the customary courts are marred by many lapses, which seriously undermine both judicial and traditional values that gave rise to their establishment. This article will therefore examine some of these problems and make suggestions for meaningful reform.
Proceedings
The conduct of proceedings at the NA courts 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. Litigants, therefore, find it difficult to compose themselves well when giving evidence. The situation is even made worse especially when women are involved either as witnesses or as victims. Due to the uncongenial atmosphere and the fact that court sessions are almost always open, even where it requires closed sessions, women most times feel reticent to testify more so when it involves crimes of a sexual nature. Such situations have the tendency to negatively impact the entire trial process. In effect, most people, including women have resorted to using the so called ‘Kangaroo courts’ established by local chiefs which are outside the framework of the Local Courts Act of 1963.
In addition to the coercive atmosphere, there is frequent obstruction of proceedings in the courts often resulting to premature adjournment of trial proceedings. The continuous movement of court officials within and without 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 officials during sessions. At times when court officials 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 NA courts have competence over all civil matters covered by customary laws and those governed by general law where the claim is not exceeding Le 250,000. The latter is, however, applied Mutatis Mutandis. Local courts also have competence in criminal cases where the issues at stake do not exceed Le 50,000. However, NA courts do not always adhere to this constitutional provision stricto senso That is to say, they also adjudicate cases that do not fall within their competence. For instance, at the Local Court # 1 in Kakua Chiefdom, Bo District, a lady (name withheld) was summoned for failing to pay a debt amounting to Le. 747, 000. Technically, this matter falls outside the jurisdiction of NA courts. However, because of lack of knowledge on the part of the litigants about the jurisdiction of the court, the matter was adjudicated 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 above the jurisdiction of local courts. By virtue of their constitutional mandate, Paramount Chiefs have no business in setting up courts. Their duties are purely administrative and not judicial. 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 responsibility of the local courts. Most of the cases adjudicated by the Paramount Chiefs are linguistically renamed as family matters so as to give them the mandate to sit and adjudicate such matters. It is surprising and ironic to note that enormous fines are levied in these courts. That besides, court Chairmen often decline to adjudicate matters that have once been settled by Paramount Chiefs in order not to annoy them.
Recommendations
Customary courts in Sierra Leone require similar reforms that are currently on-going in the justice sector. Majority of Sierra Leoneans use this system, and therefore deserves more attention. Moreover, the tendency of abuse of power is more imminent under customary law than under the Common Law. This is not only because customary laws are mostly unwritten, but also because majority of the people who use them do not know the limitation of their authority. Furthermore, they are not aware of the rights provided them under customary law. Based on our findings, most of the local court officials do not have the basic knowledge on the operations of the judiciary, the structure of the courts in Sierra Leone and their jurisdictional boundaries. To this end, it is important that local court officials are given regular trainings on the law, human rights and contemporary legal techniques. The trainings will, therefore, not only enhance their performance but will also help them know how to operate within their jurisdiction.
There should also be public education on how to use the local courts. Some people in the rural communities are not aware of the existence of appeal process in the local courts. They treat the decisions of the local courts as final. The few who are aware hardly use it as they consider it not only a waste of time, because of the lengthy trial process but also very expensive. At the end, they become unwillingly content with the decisions handed down to them by the Chiefs and Court Chairmen. Ensuring public education on how to use the local court should therefore be prioritized. The information should also include issues bordering on the jurisdiction of the courts.
The SLCMP is therefore of the conviction that the administration of justice in Native Administration Courts will be greatly improved if the recommendations proffered are treated with the seriousness it deserves by all stakeholders in the justice sector.