Are Some More Equal Than Others in the Justice System?

Are Some More Equal Than Others in the Justice System?

By Alimamy Koroma, Extern at AdvocAid

The people of Sierra Leone with the help of the international community have been working relentlessly since the end of the brutal civil war in 2002 to strengthen the country’s machinery of justice. This is undoubtedly due to the realization that to a large extent it was the shameful decadence of this very system in the first place  that caused the civil war whose unspeakable consequences in terms of  loss of lives and properties would remain a dark chapter in the annals of our history for a very long time.

One should therefore be forgiven to expect the government to compliment the efforts of the people by taking every necessary step to ensure that the legal system is efficient not only when the accused is a poor and unconnected nobody but also when the rights to defend are those of the poor if not for anything but because that is what justice demands. The issue I would now like to explore is whether our legal system applies the same rule to the rich and poor or whether as some have suggested  our legal system draws inspiration from George Orwell’s animal farm, upholding the view that although all people are equal some are more equal than others?

I can already hear some readers screaming that equality before the law is simply an illusion that died with its foremost proponent A.V Dicey. I am a pragmatist myself and I have heard of inequality in the legal system of even western countries.  But when a legal system automatically loses files, concocts all sorts of excuses for adjournments and begins to get calls from politicians once the man in the dock /is a rich and connected somebody, are we not going a bit far? Is this not taking us back to pre-war Sierra Leone, where justice was a kingdom only known to the rich and powerful? I simply ask and these questions are not meant in any way to undermine the fantastic job done by the greater majority within the justice machinery who work very hard usually in challenging circumstances to ensure fairness in our courts. On the contrary, I expect these questions to stimulate a healthy debate among government officials, NGO’s, legal practitioners, students, youths and every Sierra Leonean for that matter  so as to explore ways in which we can improve our machinery of justice. This is because it is only when we are sure that the poor and the rich can get justice in this country can we be fully satisfied that never again will we suffer from the scourges of war.

Juvenile Delinquency in Sierra Leone

By John Mans - Extern at Defence for Children

 The issue of juvenile delinquency is a major problem faced by young teens between the age of 14 and 17 years in Sierra Leone. The issue of juvenile delinquency has worsened after the brutal civil war. A large number of children were displaced, orphaned and traumatized and these factors increased the crime committed by young children. Due to the widespread of poverty found in Sierra Leone, the crime rates among younger children have increased. Most of them are involved in crimes such as stealing and burglary and the reasons are to only make ends meet. Many young people are also involved in drugs and this leads to their entering the criminal justice system. The issue of juvenile delinquency has also been triggered by the acts of the law enforcing body in the country, the police.

Sadly, when these young offenders are caught committing crimes, they are often locked up together with adults.  They are not detained on their own but share with adults which can often encourage them into a further life of crime as they mix with adults who are involved in more serious criminal activities.

Another issue affecting the increase in juvenile delinquency is the role of the police. Many police officers force young people who have been arrested to answer to crimes forcibly which they have been accused of and have not committed. Due to fear and interrogation, these young people will often admit to such crimes committed. They forcibly do as they are told by the police and they are taken to court, and then sentenced. The reason why these police officers do not appropriately handle cases involving juveniles is due to lack of training and lack of information on juvenile justice standards.

In order to deal with these issues I think there needs to be:

1.     More efforts to combat poverty, youth unemployment and drug use amongst young people

2.     More training and support for children at home

3.     More training for the police

4.     Separate detention facilities for juveniles

Thoughts on Legal Education Classes

By Wilbri John, Externa at LAWYERS

Conducting legal education has been a success for me generally.  I have conducted four legal educations; three at the Freetown Female Prison and one at the Annie Walsh Memorial Secondary School.  Giving legal education to pupils is faster and more rewarding because they are more eager to learn and they ask questions which I responded appropriately.  Most prisoners say they do not need legal education but rather the police and court clerks should be educated on legal issues.  Prisoners are treated with tolerance and respect and at the end of the day the legal education is successful.

Challenges faced in doing legal education in prisons are:

• ·       Most of the prisoners are more interested in explaining their plight and asking for help rather than listening to what I have to say. 
• ·       All inmates are not available at the same time because at times they are engaged in compulsory service.  When this happens only sick inmates are available because they are exempted. 
• ·       Because we educate prisoners on how they should be treated in prisons and their rights in prison, it is extremely difficult to do legal education in the presence of prison officers.  Most prisoners feel terrified to explain if they are being mistreated. 

At the end of each legal education, prisoners are asked if they have questions or problems and most of they come up with complaints.  Prisoners are very friendly and as long as you have a little patience to try and understand each other, legal education runs smoothly.

What the Law Says about the Power to Arrest?

By Alimamy Koroma, Extern at AdvocAid

Arrest is probably the most widely used method by the police to bring a suspect into the custody of the law.  Given the recent spate of fatal killings by police officers while allegedly effecting arrest, it is of great importance that people understand what the law says about arrest so as to know when the police are simply upholding the law or going beyond their limits.

In truth, the recent gruesome killings of two youths at Wellington by police officers during arrest while being exceptional is not entirely a new phenomenon in terms of unnecessary force employed by police to institute arrest.  I regret to add that a significant number of our clients report incidents of police brutality while being arrested with some even losing properties.  As I write, we are filing a complaint on behalf of twenty two of our clients, including eight women who were either beaten or had their properties looted allegedly by police officers while being arrested for loitering.  One of the female clients sustained serious injury on her right eye.  And quite recently, reports came in again about a motorbike rider who was shot dead by police at Lumley for failing to stop after he had been asked to.

Being an aspiring democratic country with full commitment to human rights protection, it comes as a big surprise that week in week out certain police officers tarnish the reputation of their institution by using excessive force to arrest people at times suspected of very minor crimes.  Legislations on protection from arbitrary arrest and arrest procedures are found in both the Constitution of Sierra Leone Act No.6 of 1991 and the Criminal Procedure Act of 1965.  Section 17 subsection 1 of the 1991 Constitution confers protection from arbitrary arrest or detention to every person in Sierra Leone irrespective of race, tribe, and place of origin, political opinion, colour, creed or sex.  Sections 4 to 15 of the Criminal Procedures Act (1965) constitute the laws governing arrest procedure.  Section 4 (1) allows a police officer to confine or touch the body of a person to be arrested but not when the person consents by word or action.  Section 4 (2) is of utmost significance as it appears to be widely misunderstood by police officers.  It reads “If such person forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him, or attempts to evade the arrest, such constable or other person may use sufficient force to effect the arrest but no more.”  I think the key phrases here are ‘forcibly resists’ and ‘sufficient force’.  The question what constitutes sufficient force is debatable but what is certain is that causing death must not be the first option of the police when effecting arrest.

Similarly, section 8 of the said Criminal Procedure Act 1965 provides that “The person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent his escape”.  It cannot be clearer than this.  

Any police officer who therefore shoots people unnecessarily on the pretext of arrest does so entirely on his own volition and neither the police code of conduct not the Constitution of Sierra Leone offers him a defense.  And whereas our country is based on the rule of law it would not be long before these culprits face justice.

Is This Justice

The incredible delay in the legal system does not only apply to court proceedings, but extends even to the mechanisms that should facilitate trial. It is not uncommon for children in the remand home not to appear in court for several days because those that are responsible for the transport to and fro the remand home can not do so because there is no fuel for the vehicle. It is unbelievable to know that children are deprived of their right to trial or appear in court on the adjourned date because of a lack of fuel, the cost of which is approximately $5 per gallon and $1 per liter.  It is not only the the accused that are deprived of having justice, even the victims who are present to see those suspected and charged of having committed a crime proven guilty or otherwise experience the delays in justice first hand. In the case of victims, especially those those who have been sexually abused or assaulted, they often get tired of regularly attending court without any proceeding being held.  As a result of their frustration many of them resort to settling it domestically by being offered money, while others abandon the process and stop coming altogether. Even the accused, who is often kept in detention for a very long time without significant time in front of a judge tends to become frustrated by the process.  This chaos has a flow on effect; as the victims stop attending court, so do the witnesses. This results in the accused attending court multiple times without representation of the victims, often giving the judge no option but to acquit the accused of the alleged crimes altogether. This begs the question - is this justice? Written by Anrite

Taylor's Conviction: What Are The Implications?

Following the Special Court’s landmark conviction of Liberia’s ex-president Charles Taylor for aiding and abetting the civil war in Sierra Leone and his subsequent sentencing for 50 years, there is a huge debate going on about the implications of such a decision especially to Africa in general and Sierra Leone in particular.

Given the current climate of widespread violations of human rights by certain African leaders, most notably the Sudanese and Zimbabwean presidents, a lot has been said about the Taylor verdict being a strong and unambiguous message that there is an end to impunity for heads of State who commit human rights violations. The fact that the ex-president of Ivory Coast, Lauren Gbagbo who is accused of human rights violations, is about to be tried further adds credence to this point. In the past, we can painfully remember how some African leaders used terror and oppression to cling on to power, despite clear unpopularity among their people. It is my view that the heavy-handed sentencing of Taylor is likely to forestall or discourage future abuse of power.

Another important implication of the Special Court’s decision is  the new judicial precedents it has set in the area of International Criminal Law.  It is clear that future trials on gross human rights violations will make substantial references to this historic trial, particularly with regards the legal definitions of “command responsibility” and “aiding and abetting”  among others. The decision makes clear that even if an accused is not present at the scene of the crime this is no defense to a charge of “aiding and abetting” under International Criminal Law. As Judge Richard Lussick noted “While Mr. Taylor never set foot in Sierra Leone, his heavy footprint is there”. Therefore, there is now increased likelihood that sponsors of atrocities in other countries will now be convicted where they are found to have “aided and abetted” human rights violations.” Considering the thinness of case law in the area of International criminal law, Taylor’s trial is no doubt a welcome addition.

Speaking after the announcement of the decision, the chairman of the Amputees’ Association, Mr. Edward Conteh described the verdict as a “relief” and added that “It is a step forward as justice has been done…”. 

I suppose this is perhaps the true implication of the decision; that the victims of Charles Taylor can now move on and get on with their lives, after painstakingly waiting for justice for nearly 10 years, since Mr. Taylor was indicted on June 4 2003. At certain points during the long wait for this verdict, some of them became frustrated, others out rightly cynical and doubtful whether the Court would subdue to Taylor’s defense team and deny them justice one last time. As it turned out, the Court did not and fifty years for Taylor is considered a victory for justice and his victims. The words of David Anyeale, a Nigerian national whose limbs were hacked off by Taylor’s men in Kissy, Eastern Freetown have captured my attention. Welcoming the decision he wrote, “I received the news of the sentencing of Charles Taylor to 50 years jail term with gratitude. I thank the prosecuting team for a job well done… When Captain Goldteeth amputated my hands, poured fuel and set me on fire beside the cemetery at shell bus stop, Kissy bye pass, Freetown, he never knew that I will survive…”

It is stories like these that remind us of what happened in Sierra Leone because of Taylor and why we all must receive his sentencing with joy and spare a thought for every one of his victims.   Now we can do even more justice to his victims by not allowing his heinous crimes to hold us back and poison our minds with bitterness and hatred. Justice has been delivered and Sierra Leoneans must embark on the long journey of rebuilding a prosperous and loving nation from the ashes of war.

22 Prisoners Freed

By Wilbri John

I am grateful for this opportunity I have been given to help people in need.  It is a very good experience to see people deserving justice get justice.  I was very fortunate to be among the group that interviewed thirteen women in the female prison that were imprisoned for no just cause.  They were grabbed from their homes and due to the fact that they were all illiterates, they pleaded guilty to loitering without being aware of the consequences.  They were sentenced to six months imprisonment.  Due to the hard work of AdvocAid, their release was secured after having spent two months in prison.  When I learnt they had been released, I was thrilled.  Just being a part of such a case made me feel that I was a big help in making a difference in their lives.

AdvocAid Press Release:

22 “LOITERING” PRISONERS RELEASED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE FOLLOWING ADVOCAID INTERVENTION

22 people (7 men, 12 women, 4 juveniles) convicted of loitering and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment at Pademba Road and Freetown Female Prisons, were dramatically released on 2 February 2012 after local civil society organisation, AdvocAid, requested a summary review by the Chief Justice. 

The conviction resulted in the female prison population almost doubling overnight, straining the already limited prison resources. The prisoners were unable to spend Christmas with their families and the women did not have time to put childcare arrangements in place before their arrest and sentence. 

The exact details of the “loitering” offence are unclear but it supposedly took place between 10am to noon on a Tuesday in December 2011 around the Tower Hill area of Freetown. Most of the accused were outside or even in their homes conducting normal daily activities. Whilst the maximum sentence for loitering is 1 month under the Public Order Act 1965, the usual sentence is a caution and discharge or a fine of Le 50,000 (fifty thousand Leones). By 2 February 2012, the prisoners had already served 7 weeks in prison (well over the 4 week maximum sentence). Among those convicted was a 9 month pregnant woman, who gave birth in prison, a 13 year old boy and 3 other juveniles. The Magistrate sentenced 36 persons to imprisonment but, due to circumstances yet unclear, only 22 were actually in custody and serving the sentence. Several of the detainees were injured, allegedly by the police, and one female detainee, who was 9 months pregnant at the time of arrest, delivered her baby in prison.

AdvocAid, which provides legal aid, education and welfare support to female detainees and their children, was able to act quickly upon discovery of this situation. AdvocAid staff members met with the convicted persons to ascertain the circumstances of their arrest and recorded their statements. Based on this information, AdvocAid submitted a request for a summary review to the Chief Justice. 

On behalf of the released prisoners, AdvocAid would like to thank the Honourable Chief Justice for acting speedily to remedy the error.  Thanks also to all AdvocAid staff, volunteers and the Fourah Bay college legal extern students who assisted with drafting the review application and interviewing the affected persons. Finally our appreciation to our donors: Open Society Foundations, Mama Cash and Open Society Justice Initiative who made it all possible.

AdvocAid – supporting justice, education and reintegration for women and their children in conflict with the law in Sierra Leone