Approximately 70 percent of Sierra Leone’s population relies on traditional form of justice, which is usually more accessible, cheaper, and faster in disposing cases. Although the local court system has limited jurisdiction, it has powers to hear both civil and criminal cases. As a court of first instance, it also has the original jurisdiction to hear and determine all land cases in the provinces. Presided over by a chairman, assisted by a clerk and at least three assessors
(who are knowledgeable in the traditions and customs of their respective ethnic groups), local or Native Administrative (NA) Courts are required by law to hear and determine cases fairly, impartially and without fear or favour. Every NA Court Chairman is under oath to “do right to all manner of people according to the laws and customs recognized by such court without fear or favour, affection or ill will”, according to Section 4 of the Local Court Act of 1963 (as amended) and section 15 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone.
Article 14 (1) of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that “All persons shall be equal before the courts”. This means, among other things, that all persons must be given the right
to equal access to a court of law. Article 14 (1) also provides for a fair hearing by a competent, independent and impartial court established by law. One of the fundamental determinants of the fairness or otherwise of a trial is the extent to which the principle of ‘equality of arms’ is observed. This principle requires that all parties in a trial are treated equally in the interpretation of applicable laws and procedures. The laws and procedures must not be changed or interpreted based on the impulse of court officials.
In spite of these legal provisions, the Chairman of NA Court No. 2 in Bo has clearly shown partiality in an ongoing trial. Specifically, the Chairman deliberately prevented the panel of assessors from cross examining the defendant and his witnesses in order to give the plaintiff an undue advantage. Even though cross examination is normally done by him and the panel of assessors, on this occasion, he chose to do it alone, much to the amazement and disappointment of his colleagues.
The particulars of the case are that the defendant (tenant) and the plaintiff (landlord) allegedly entered into a tenancy agreement in which the defendant accepted to give the building a facelift, with the understanding that the total expenses will be deducted from the rent. Both parties allegedly subsequently agreed that the defendant should occupy the apartment for a year in lieu of the Le300,000 (approximately $70) he had spent to fix the apartment. The defendant claims that the tenancy agreement had not elapsed when the landlord asked him to quit. This Landlord claims that the tenant ought to have paid him an additional Le40,000 (approximately $9) as part of the contract, which the tenant refused to pay. The landlord filed a suit seeking the court to order the tenant to quit and pay the arrears owed to him.
As a way of tilting the balance in favour of the plaintiff, the Court Chairman deliberately shut out the panel of assessors during the cross-examination of the defendant and his witnesses, which constituted a clear breach of standard procedures of the Court. Even when the panel of assessors remonstrated against his strategy in the full glare of the public, he did not budge. A CARL employee, who was monitoring the trial, was shocked at the embarrassing conduct of the Court Chairman. The line of cross-examination that was adopted by the Chairman was not only out of order, it clearly showed how determined he was to aid his friend (the plaintiff) to get a favourable judgment. Here’s an excerpt from the transcript prepared by CARL:
Chairman (cross-examining the defendant): “Did you inform the Area Chief about the Le300,000 (approximately $70) worth of materials you used to fix the apartment?”
“Did you sign your expenditure document before presenting it to your Landlord?”
(To the defence witness): “Did you see the tenant present the list of his expenditure to the Landlord for his approval by signing it?”
It was obvious that the Court Chairman wanted to establish a new set of rules guiding the relationship between tenants and landlords because never before has any tenant brought in an Area Chief in the signing of a tenancy agreement. Additionally, it is very uncommon for tenants to prepare and sign expenditure claims before presenting them to landlords. It is almost a no-no for tenants to bring in Area chiefs on tenancy agreements in urban communities like Bo city. The fact is that the Court Chairman knew that the defendant did not do it, and did not have to do it, as a matter of fact. He simply went out of his way to make the defendant appear like the guilty party. What usually happens is that a verbal statement of approval or disapproval is given by the landlord as long as there is at least a witness. Thousands of such agreements are entered into on a daily bases in the provinces, where most of those in such agreement cannot read and write.
Although a verdict has not been handed down in this matter, it is very likely that the Chairman, who has overtly demonstrated a bias in favour of the plaintiff, will enter a guilty verdict against the defendant. Unfortunate to mention, however, while litigants have a right to file an appeal against verdict in the inferior courts, most court users are either unaware of the procedures involved or do not have the funds to pay for legal services. It is especially recommended that public awareness programmes relating to access to justice are undertaken. That way, court officials will get better at their jobs, and court users will know that other options are available to them.
organizations with the skills and resources begin to focus on monitoring the courts. In particular, the local courts, where most abuses take place either due to ignorance or lack of monitors, require additional training programmes. That is why CARL will remain committed to monitoring the courts as well as undertaking training programmes for court officials. Although CARL will continue to monitor the courts, it is recommended that other human rights
