Court proceedings at the formal justice system in Sierra Leone are conducted in English, the country’s official language. Although an application could be made on behalf of a litigant by their lawyer to conduct proceedings in local languages, this does not happen very often. In any case, if the litigants cannot speak or understand English, the service of an interpreter is always required as it is mandatory for lawyers to address the Bench in English. Many court users, however, have expressed disappointment at the paucity of interpreters particularly at the Magistrate Courts. Most litigants in the provinces cannot speak or understand English, and sometimes find it difficult to comprehend Krio. They mostly need interpretation services, and unfortunately, they do not always get it. This may amount to a breach of their rights. As a result, some litigants either refuse to appear in court or fail to provide a detailed and accurate testimony relating to the trial. This could have an adverse effect on the outcome of trials. To address this, there is a genuine need to recruit more interpreters, train and assign them to various Magistrate courts across the country.
This article seeks to highlight some of the challenges facing the interpretation unit of the Bo Magistrate Court, and to proffer some suggestions regarding how they can be addressed.
National laws and international conventions governing trials provide that accused persons and witnesses be provided the services of interpreters. For instance, Article 14(3) (f) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides that persons charged with criminal offence should be entitled to free assistance of an interpreter during trials if such persons cannot speak the language of the Court. Section 23(5)(e) of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone provides that “a person charged with a criminal offence shall be accorded, without payment, the assistance of an interpreter if such person cannot adequately understand the language of the court”. The Constitution provides for the services of an interpreter in order to protect the fair trial rights of the accused, and ensure that they understand and follow the proceedings. Competent interpreters can also help expedite trials. Court-appointed interpreters also enhance equality of arms, which is another requirement for fair trial.
The role of interpreters in the administration of justice cannot be overemphasized. The principle of equality of arms requires, among other things, that both parties in a trial be afforded equal opportunities before a court of law to present their own side of the story. None of them should enjoy an undue advantage that might prejudice the other during the presentation of their cases.
The Seat of the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone
CARL-SL is not aware, though, of any policy statement issued by Sierra Leone’s Chief Justice regarding the quality and number of interpreters every court should recruit.
The CARL experience in Bo shows that even though the court appoints interpreters, however, the quality of interpretation leaves much to be desired. This is partly because the interpreters are either untrained to faithfully interpret some complex legal issues, and largely because the paucity of interpreters means that they are overwhelmed with interpretation duties. It is a shame that in some cases, Court clerks double as recorders and interpreters. Consequently, proceedings are adjourned whenever the interpreter is absent, thereby prolonging trials.
Even more embarrassing is the fact that police prosecutors, who are representatives of the Inspector General in criminal trials, are sometimes called upon to serve as interpreters. It is frightening and unthinkable that prosecutors are required to translate in a matter in which they are a party. There is also a likelihood that the prosecuting interpreters may renege on their moral responsibility of saying the truth. This obviously erodes public confidence in the justice system, and makes the accused person in particular absolutely nervous about the outcome of the trial. CARL has persistently observed that some interpreters only choose to provide translation services in cases where they have vested interest, either as friends of one of the litigants or where they have received tips for their services. On some occasions, litigants have had the need to appeal to court officers for help with interpretation. This ultimately increases litigation fees, and invariably discourages people from accessing the courts. Something needs to be done about this, almost immediately.
Implications for Justice
This state of affairs presents grave implications for the justice system: The dearth of interpreters means frequent adjournments in trials, thereby causing unnecessary delays in trials. Accused persons have a right to speedy trial, and inordinate delays sometimes caused by the absence or unavailability of interpreters could constitute a breach of their rights. Furthermore, in instances where prosecutors are called upon to interpret, the accused persons particularly cannot be sure whether the conversations are faithfully interpreted. Court clerks are overwhelmed, which invariably affects their effectiveness and concentration levels.
Recommendations:
The Sierra Leone judiciary needs to provide guidelines to enhance fairness and consistency in interpretation. In order to enhance this, the following is worth considering:
Trained interpreters should be assigned to Magistrate and other superior courts of judicature throughout the country. The fact is that every field has its own language; it only makes sense that the judiciary undertakes massive recruitment and training of interpreters in the different Sierra Leone languages. The Special Court for Sierra Leone is winding down its activities, and will leave behind a pool of well-trained and professional interpreters. With a little bit of motivation, these interpreters will be more than willing to contribute to local justice. After all, this was meant to be part of the Court’s legacy program. CARL urges the Consultant Master and Registrar to look into the possibility of recruiting some of these professional interpreters to serve the courts as well as train others.
