It is a general rule in all court cases—civil and criminal—that no external or outside charge should be pitched into the proceedings of a specific offence(s) for which an individual is brought to a court of law, expect for other court related offences such as contempt, lying on oath, and the like. This general rule was overtly abused by a Chairman in the Native Court No. 2 in Bo city, when he fined a woman for an alleged offence which had not been investigated and which was beyond his jurisdiction.
This piece is intended to bring into the open one of the abuses inherent in one of the courts in Bo city. It points out some of the existing laws that prevent courts from overstepping their jurisdictional authority, and further enumerates the effects of such abuses on litigants and the Local Court system in this region generally. Lastly, it points out recommendations intended to forestall such abuses and restore the integrity of our Local Court system in the country at large.
Section 44 (1) of the Local Courts Act states that: ‘any person who sits as a member of the court without due authority [in it] commits an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding Le 200,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both…”, and Section 44 (3) stipulates that: “No prosecution for an offence against Subsection (1) shall be instituted without the consent in writing of the Director of Public Prosecution”.
This abuse of authority under initially sparked off when a concerned mother reported one Hassan Koroma and his mother for harboring her 16-year old school-going daughter for sexual purposes, to a Section Chief at Yemoh Town section. This Chief then sent a sub-chief to invite the alleged offenders. The victim’s elder brother, Elijah, was asked to accompany the emissary-chief to identify them. Upon arrival, the alleged offenders insulted the brother in the very presence of the sub-chief. When this incident was reported to the Section Chief he imposed a parallel fine of Le 30,000 each on both the insulters and the insulted. The insulted young man paid the fine while the 2 on the other side failed. There upon, the Section Chief forwarded the defaulters to the N.A. Court No 2. During inquiries into this criminal case of contempt and upon the failure of the insulters to pay the fine for their insulting conducts, the harbored victim was reported to have said that her mother knew of her love relationship with Hassan Koroma, the alleged abuser. This court Chairman instantly levied a Le 100,000 fine on the victim’s mother without allowing her to tell her side of the story, though her son, Elijah, informed then that he and their mother had reported the case of harboring to the East End Police Station and that it was under investigation. Notwithstanding, the Chairman and his panel could not listen, but ordered the clerk to serve the woman with a criminal summon, followed by threats of detention if she should fail to pay. Under pressure and in distress she offered her cell-phone as collateral and then sent her other daughter home to ask for a loan to enable her pay off the fine.
It was after this payment that a CARL/SL Monitor discovered this anomaly. When the Chairman and the clerk contested the monitor’s intervention, he advised the abused woman to write a complaint to the Customary Law Officer for redress. She did write the letter, dated 16 October, 2014, but since the time of filing this complaint, about mid December 2014, it has not been addressed. This mother lamented that the petty trade from which she supported her five school-going pupils had collapsed as a result of this court fine and other expenses in the circumstances. It was on 12 December 2014 that the harbored girl returned home after appealing to her aunt and the mother for mercy.
In the first place, cases of harboring are entirely criminal in nature, and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of Local Courts. Their initial complaints are taken to the police for investigations and then charged to the Magistrate’s Court for preliminary investigations and possible committal to the High Court should there be sufficient evidence for the case to enter trial in the High Court. It was therefore wrong for this Local Court Chairman to interfere with and impose a fine in a case that is lawfully beyond his jurisdiction. Further, the woman was denied her rights: a) to a fair hearing, and b) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. This means that her case was not investigated or heard in court before judgment was passed on her. She had stood against the abuse of her daughter by a 28 years old man, arguing that she and her son, Elijah, had initiated a complaint of harboring at a Police Station, and that she could not allow her 16-year old child to stay with a lover while the victim’s elder sister, aged 20, was still in school. Yet this Chairman had not taken any action.
Abuses of the trial rights of parties to a complainant have the effects of eroding the reputation of our justice system, especially after our civil conflict one of whose causes was the glaring injustices in the courts and the police. These situations are a glaring fleet in a distance, and in order to nip them in the bud, CARL will proffer suitable recommendations which if considered and implemented would be of great benefit especially since it would strengthen our fragile democracy.
CARL has been providing trainings in Bo to court officials in the laws, the extent and limits of their authority, jurisdiction, fair trial rights of litigants and the rule of law generally. This approach should be replicated by government and other development partners on a regular basis and in all districts or jurisdictions across the country. Case monitoring should be introduced at pre-trail levels (police investigations) and then broadened to encompass all levels of courts wherever they are in Sierra Leone. Judicial authorities should take seriously the constructive criticisms and corrective measures put forward by court monitors as they are living witnesses to the inherent lapses in our justice system. Also, there should be set up a Judicial Service Ethics Commission to oversee the work of justice officials, receive and deal with complaints against these officials, and punish in line with the provisions of the law those found in default in the performance of their duties.
It will be too costly for our fledgling democracy for the justice needs of any category of people and at any level to be sacrificed for any selfish aspirations; for, as was aptly put by Martin Luther King Jr., “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”.