There have been persisting questions about the commitment of the leadership of the Sierra Leone Police (SLP) to foster accountability within the force since the conflict ended more than a decade ago. Questions about police accountability have prompted calls for more civilian oversight of the decision-making and accountability mechanisms of the police. At the moment, the police is essentially run by politicians. For instance, the highest decision-making body of the police, the Police Council, is headed by the Vice President. The Internal Affairs Minister serves as Secretary to the Council. In fact, seven of the eight members of the Council are directly or indirectly selected by the President. The Council has enormous responsibilities. Pursuant to Section 158(1) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone, the Council advises the President on “all major matters of policy relating to internal security, including the role of the police force, police budgeting and finance, administration and any other matter as the President shall require.” Such are the powers of the Council that it is inconceivable that it is still run and controlled by politicians. This is an anomaly that the Constitutional review process will hopefully address.
Consistent with its oversight responsibilities, the Police Council set up the CDIID as an internal accountability mechanism that investigates complaints against police officers. It is worth recognizing that the CDIID has successfully carried out a number of investigations, and recommended disciplinary actions against a host of badly behaved police officers. In spite of these apparent successful cases, there are questions about the absence of civilian presence on the committee and the lack of transparency in or access to its proceedings. These questions keep coming back because the CDIID consists entirely of police officers, and hardly does it make its proceedings accessible to the public.
Discussions about the widening impunity gap in the police heightened in the last three years, particularly after the alleged unlawful killings by security personnel attached to mining companies or those ordered to put down riotous conduct. In the recent past, there have been tragic stories of police officers allegedly pulling the trigger for no justified reason. The result has been the loss of civilian lives. Many of these shootings have been followed by state-sanctioned investigations into the circumstances leading to them. Each of those investigations has come out with a report, but sadly little has been done in terms of implementing those recommendations. In essence, most of the violations have gone unpunished. Instances of violations without any genuine effort by the leadership of the police, including the Police Council, to foster accountability are many. For instance, police personnel shot dead an unarmed motorcycle rider and wounded several others during a September 2011 politically-motivated violence in Bo. Despite a recommendation for investigation and disciplinary action by a Presidential Committee set up to investigate the incident, no action was taken. It is a shame that civilians who were allegedly responsible for the acts of violence ‘are/were being tried’, while the police officers were simply shielded. In addition, police personnel shot dead a woman and injured at least six others in Bumbuna, northern Sierra Leone, following a protest by mine workers. An investigation report by the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone (HRCSL) recommended that the police identify and investigate all personnel involved in the incident. Many of the key recommendations have still not been carried out. There have also been alleged unlawful killings by police officers in Goderich and Wellington, and in Ferengbeya and Koidu, in Freetown and the provinces, respectively. Still, little has been done to bring the perpetrators to justice. In May 2013, the police also shot dead a U.S-based Sierra Leonean who was on vacation in Sierra Leone in circumstances that are still being investigated. Never mind the Inspectoral-General of Police roundly justified the action of his officers at the time.
Perhaps in recognition of the jurisdictional incapacity of the CDIID to undertake an independent and complex investigation as well as the growing public pressure to end impunity in the police, the Police Council, Ministry of Internal Affairs and other actors partnered to develop regulations for the establishment of an Independent Police Complaints Board (IPCB). Among other things, the regulations make provision for the establishment of an independent police complaints board mandated to investigate:
– the death of any person in the custody of the police
– a shooting incident where a police officer has discharged a firearm or killed a person
– incidents of injuries and assault or wounding caused by a police officer
– allegations of misconduct involving an officer of the rank of Superintendent or higher
Other critical functions of the board include advising the police force on ways in which negative incidents involving the police may be avoided or eliminated. Each of these functions is important, but in light of recent incidents relating to police brutality, there would be little or no argument about the fact that the Board’s most difficult function would be to investigate shooting incidents where police officers have discharged firearms or killed a person. To do so would require adequate funding, independent and well-driven leadership, and sustained oversight from the public. Civil society organisations and Police Partnership Boards have a key role to play. There is an unfortunate tendency of public officials sometimes going out of their way to show allegiance to their direct employers – rather than the people whose interests they are expected to protect. My genuine hope is that members of the IPC Board will think and act differently. They must always remember that their primary responsibility is to promote accountability for perpetrators, and more importantly, ensure that victims get justice. The worst possible outcome of such a commendable initiative is to allow police officers to commit serious violations and shield the alleged perpetrators from facing justice.
This is quite a laudable effort, and the CARL entirely commends everyone or institution that has been involved in the process. There are, however, some grey areas in the regulations that have the potential of undermining the Board’s independence to freely and fairly dispense its obligations. First off, it is simply a regulation – not a law. That is not good enough. We should have been more ambitious and committed to addressing the problem through an Act of parliament. The regulation provides a useful step forward, though, in terms of addressing the impunity gap that has characterised the police for decades, it is still work in progress, and going forward, strong efforts are required to ensure that the Board is truly independent. The issue of independence is important because four of the seven members of the Board will be directly or indirectly appointed by the President. It is curious that no civil society group is represented on the Board. There will be representatives from the national human rights commission, the Bar Association and the inter-religious council. That should provide some consolation.
Funding is another potential source of challenge for the Board. The Regulations do not set out a distinct funding mechanism for the Board. It is, therefore, very likely that the funding for the Board will be subsumed either in the budget of the Sierra Leone Police or another state organ. It is public knowledge that the Legal Aid Board has not been set up because the state has not provided funds for its operations. We might avoid that unfortunate experience by designing a workable strategy for bankrolling the IPC Board. The danger about allowing funds for the Board to come from the annual allocation to the police, for example, is that it might easily give the police leadership an undue leverage over the Board. That should not be allowed to happen.
The Board should promote public interest in, and support for the Board by ensuring that public hearings are decentralized and members of the public are given unlimited opportunities to follow the proceedings. Since the regulations give the Board the power to make decisions regarding the conduct of public hearings, it is recommended that hearings are ideally held in the communities or districts where the incidents took place. After all, justice should not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
The Board is also limited in terms of the class of personnel whose alleged misconduct can be investigated. The Board can only investigate allegations of misconduct involving an officer of the rank of Superintendent or higher. In other words, personnel who fall below the aforementioned rank will continue to be subject to the current accountability mechanisms in the police, i.e. the CDIID. This obviously requires the need to make the CDIID’s complaints hearing procedures more transparent and more accessible to the public. I understand the need to reduce the number and types of complaints that can be handled by the IPCB, but without corresponding changes in the way the CDIID works, efforts at ensuring accountability for police officers would be incomplete. This is particularly important in light of the numerous complaints that are reportedly filed by motorcycle riders against traffic police officers. Many of the officers involved in the alleged violations are below the rank of Superintendent. Regardless of their rank, there needs to be a reliable method of holding them accountable in a fair, transparent and timely manner.
The approval of regulations for the establishment of an independent police complaints board is clearly a laudable effort, but as with many brilliant initiatives in Sierra Leone, effective implementation will be a key challenge. If it is allowed to function as a truly independent complaints board, it could help tighten the impunity gap and restore public trust and confidence in the police.