A national juvenile justice workshop was held from the 6-8 February 2006 by civil society groups led by the juvenile sub committee of the Justice Sector Development Programme. That was in response to the recommendation given by the United Nations Human Right Committee on the submission of Sierra Leones first report on the Convention on Rights of the Child. It recommended that Sierra Leone should develop an overhaul strategy for the implementation of the child’s rights bill. Subsequent findings of the workshop will be used to develop a government implemented multi sector juvenile justice strategy. The strategy must prioritise social justice and try to minimize the cost of juveniles accessing justice. It must also explore accountability mechanisms for both formal and informal juvenile justice approaches. Every policy developed should be in the child’s best interest and must not be discriminatory. It must inculcate fundamental human rights provisions. The strategy must also include diverse alternatives to detention, adjudication and sentencing, all of which must be in the welfare of the child.
This article reviews the relevant legal and social problems discussed during the course of the workshop. It outlines the responses to the highlighted problems and further gives recommendations.
Legal Problems
These are problems in both the law and practice within the juvenile justice system in the country. It treats all categories of juveniles namely the offender, victim and those at risk of offending. There is inconsistency in the definition of a child. Sec 2 of Cap 31 defines a child as a person under the age of sixteen, whiles Cap 44 defines a child as a person below the age of fourteen. Furthermore, the Ordinance Regulating the Infliction of Corporal Punishment in Sierra Leone defines a child as a person below fifteen years.
Another problem is the low standardised age (ten) of criminal responsibility within our laws, which was adopted from the common law in England. This contravenes rule 4 of the Beijing rules ,which states that “the beginning of that age must not be too low an age bearing in mind the facts of emotional, mental and intellectual maturity” of the offender. Moreover, the manner in which the police execute arrest and the subsequent detention of offenders together with adults in deplorable conditions for lengthy periods is bound to cause criminal contamination. In practice, it is also confirmed that seventy percent of juveniles in conflict with the law are in police custody due to their reluctance (police) to grant bail. All of these mentioned clearly contravene Sec 17(3) of the 1991 Constitution Sec 80 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and Sec 5 of Cap 44 which make provision for the protection from arbitrary arrest and detention.
At the trial stage, there is no informal juvenile court or exclusive court to try juvenile cases on a daily basis, thus the slow pace of trials. This violates Sec 23 of the 1991 Constitution which guarantees the right to fair and speedy trials within a reasonable time. During trials, there are not effective mechanisms to protect the personality of the offender especially in joint trials. This procedure is also inconsistent with Art 40 of the CRC and part 2 of Cap 44 which provide safeguards to juveniles undergoing trials.
There is also a problem in the drafting of both relevant statutes dealing with juveniles in Sierra Leone. Cap 31 does not provide health services and psycho-social therapy for victims of indecent assault and sexual abuse respectively. The punishment accorded to perpetrators under sec 7 of cap 31 is very moderate, considering the gravity of the offence. Cap 44 on the other hand does not make provision for diversion schemes, meaning referring the child to another institution to face punishment rather than adjudication, which countries like Ghana and South Africa that are signatories to the Beijing Rules (Rule 11) are practicing. It also fails to make provision for adoption which is an alternative means of child care for children at risk.
Social Infrastructural Problems
Art 7 of the CRC guarantees every child the right to a name at birth, but this is not the case in this country. The poor birth registration system in the country makes it difficult to tell the age of offenders arraigned before the juvenile court and the magistrate can only use his discretion which may not be in the best interest of the child. The remand home in which the child is sent after ascertaining his/her age, to know whether he is capable of forming a guilty intent, is poorly equipped with inadequate facilities and insufficient staff to care for juvenile inmates. On numerous occasions, cases are adjourned due to lack of transportation to convey juvenile inmates from Kingtom remand home to the main court building in the center of town to attend trials. This has also resulted to many escapes.
Probation officers whose duties are to visit police stations, interview offenders, help trace their close relations and inquire into his/her antecedent and counsel the child are not well motivated and are poorly equipped to effectively and efficiently carry out their functions. Furthermore, the juvenile justice system lacks community reintegration schemes (community services, repatriation, foster care) for juveniles proven of minor offences. The Approved School is presently in shambles as it lacks schooling/skills training facilities, health / recreational facilities and psycho social therapy which could help the child to become a useful citizen.
Responses to stated Problems
There was a consensus to implement Art1 of the CRC within our jurisprudence in defining a child; it states “a child means every human being below the age of eighteen…”A decision was made to increase the age of criminal responsibility in Sierra Leone to fourteen years. It was unanimously agreed that at pre-trial stage the community instead of the police should be the first point of call. To prevent manhandling of offenders a “special unit” should be established within the police (consisting of social workers and police officers) to deal with purely juvenile issues and members of that unit should put on civil attire when executing an arrest or they could simply ask the parent/community to present the child. During the pre-trial level, detention should be the last resort, therefore appropriate alternatives to detention such as bail, community welfare committees; school disciplinary committees should be implemented. In the event the child is detained, it should be for the shortest period of time i.e. twenty-four hours. Following that the child must be placed in an interim home (e.g. Don Bosco) with appropriate education and welfare facilities. Guidelines should be laid down for the management of all structures/institutions dealing with children at the pre-trial stage, in order to prevent child trafficking and other gross human rights violations
Participants also recommended that an informal juvenile court should be established at chiefdom level whose composition should consist a religious representative, community leader, social worker, teacher and a child representative. A standard procedure should be set to govern the administration of such courts. It should be monitored to ensure judicial accountability and must be guided by effective reporting on juvenile cases from the formal juvenile court.
With regards the formal courts, the workshop recommended that it must be child friendly, should find mechanisms to protect the identity of children, whether offenders, victims or witnesses, trials must be flexible and should not exceed three months, must respect the child’s right to expression including the right to cross examine complainants/witnesses, the presumption of innocence must exist in each and every phase of the trial process, the child must be provided with adequate interpretation and a legal representation. Strategies that make it mandatory for parent/witnesses to attend trials such as court orders, the influence of religious leaders and school administration must be applied.
Participants also recommended that probation officers must be provided with all facilities that will enable them to effectively carry out their functions. Whilst the child is in such care (probation), he/she must be supervised to see if there is a positive change of attitude. If there is, the case should be acquitted and discharged. The essence of institutionalisation (approved school) is to reform and not to punish. Therefore, adequate facilities which will foster progress, development and the child’s welfare should be provided so that in the future the child will become a responsible person in the society.
It was further recommended that the proposed amendment of Cap 44 includes a provision levying severe penalty for deliberately accusing wrongly. Similar punishment should also be levied against Parents/guardians or individuals conniving with child molesters to circumvent the laws. State homes or alternative care (adoption) should be provided for children who are at risk of offending. A laid down rules should be enacted to govern adoption.
SLCMP Recommendations
Having said this, the SLCMP suggests the following in addition to what the Workshop already discussed.
The pre-trial stage must be administered in accordance with the Beijing rules. Furthermore, key provisions of the C.R.C such as Art 40(2) which contains a host of guarantees for children should be used to govern juveniles under the criminal justice system. Some of these guarantees include the presumption against retroactivity and the right to be informed of the offence for which he/she is charged.
Emphasis should be placed on prevention mechanisms rather than adjudication in order to prevent the occurrence and reoccurrence of crimes. This could be achieved by providing adequate facilities at community level which will engage children, thus reducing or preventing the commission of crimes. It could also be accomplished by ensuring a healthy family upbringing. The school curriculum should also include modules on children’s rights and the prevention of crimes.
In conclusion the SLCMP reiterate that juvenile justice should be the priority of every country justice system. Therefore in implementing policies, the best interest of the child should be sought.
The SLCMP promises to continue proficient monitoring to see how these strategies will be implemented.