ABSTRACT

 This dissertation critically examines the role of the Office of the Chief Justice in the dispense of justice in post-conflict Sierra Leone.

Section 120 (1) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone Act No 6 of 1991, vests judicial power in the Judiciary, with the Chief Justice as its head. Section 120 (3) gives the Judiciary the authority and mandate to exercise its judicial functions while being subject only to the Constitution and any other law, but not subject to control and direction from any other person or authority.

The failure of the Judiciary as an institution over the years is said to have largely contributed to causing the 1991 civil war.

The Truth and Reconciliation Committee (TRC) found that years of greed, corruption, bad governance and influence from the Executive, systematically weakened the Judiciary, and undermined its independence. Over 15 years after the war, the Judiciary still struggles to gain credibility.

In post-conflict Sierra Leone, it is the researcher’s position that the Office of the Chief Justice has been plagued with political undue influence to the extent that its ability to be independent and dispense justice fairly has been gravely undermined.

Though there were serious limitations such as time, finances, access to data and information; even challenge in getting interviewees such as the Chief Justice and Supreme Court judges to respond to interviews.

Yet the researcher employed methods that would give credence and integrity to this work. It considered the sources and methods used for the collection, analysis and presentation of data. Attempts were made to put quantitative data in the form tables, charts; were possible mean, median, trends, frequencies and other statistical and mathematical formulae are applied to give meaning/interpretation to data collected.

On the other hand, qualitative data were also be employed giving credence and explanation to the quantitative analysis.

It should be noted, that both quantitative and qualitative use of data acted as complement giving the researcher a thorough weapon in handing the issues concerned so as to achieve the highest level efficiency and effectiveness in evaluating the role of the Chief Justice in the dispense of justice in post-war Sierra Leone.

This dissertation came out with the following findings:

• That the mandate of the Office of the Chief Justice is most appropriate for a post-conflict Sierra Leone as enshrined in section 120 of the1991 Constitution Act No: 6
• That the process of appointment as per section 135 and removal of the Chief Justice as per section 137 respectively of the Constitution of Sierra Leone gives some form of protection to the tenure of the Office of the Chief Justice; thus, guarantees to a very large extent its independency in the dispense of justice in post-conflict Sierra Leone.
• That the challenges faced by the Office of Chief Justice in post-conflict Sierra Leone by order of magnitude include; these factors are linked and inter-related:
  • Social Influence
  • Weak Structures
  • Personnel
  • Finance
  • Technology
  • Corruption

Constitutional provisions guarantee non-interference into the work and dealings of the judiciary; by extension the Office of the Chief Justice, yet there are blatant elements of interference in the operations of the judiciary from other wings of government; including interference and influence are coming from the relatives, friends and the general society. It should be noted that the role and functions of the Office of the Chief Justice is pivotal in promoting justice and equality in the society and in maintaining a critical balance between the various wings and arms of government.

This study therefore concludes that the Office of the Chief Justice particularly in post- conflict Sierra Leone has been riddled with political and other forms of interference thereby snapping off its potentials from an independent arbiter of justice in Sierra Leone.

 

 

 

CHAPTER ONE

 

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.0  OVERVIEW/BACKGROUND OF THE RESEARCH

 

Tracing the historical background of Sierra Leone’s legal system, will not be complete without first the history of the legal system in Britain.

The common law emerged as the product of a particular struggle for political power. Prior to the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, there was no unitary, national legal system. The emergence of the common law under the auspices and control of a centralized power in the form of a sovereign king; represented the assertion and affirmation of that central sovereign power. Traditionally, much play is made about the circuit of judges who travelled around the country establishing the King’s peace and, in so doing, selecting the best local customs and making them the basis of the law of England by means of a piecemeal but totally altruistic procedure. The reality of this process was that the judges were asserting the authority of the central State and its legal forms and institutions over the disparate and fragmented State and legal forms of the earlier feudal period. Hence, the common law was common to all in application.

 

By the end of the 13th century, the central authority had established its precedence at least partly through the establishment of the common law. Originally, courts had been no more than an adjunct of the King’s Council, the Curia Regis, but, gradually, the common law courts began to take on a distinct institutional existence in the form of the Courts of Exchequer, Common Pleas and King’s Bench. With this institutional autonomy, however, there developed an institutional sclerosis, typified by a reluctance to deal with matters that were not, or could not be, processed in the proper form of action. Such a refusal to deal with substantive injustices, because they did not fall within the particular parameters of procedural and formal constraints, by necessity led to injustice and the need to remedy the perceived weaknesses in the common law system.

 

The response was the development of equity. Plaintiffs who were unable to gain access to the three common law courts might appeal directly to the Sovereign, and such pleas would be passed for consideration and decision to the Lord Chancellor, who acted as the ‘King’s conscience’. As the common law courts became more formalistic and more inaccessible, pleas to the Chancellor

 

correspondingly increased and, eventually, this resulted in the emergence of a specific court which was constituted to deliver equitable or fair decisions in cases with which the common law courts declined to deal. As had happened with the common law, the decisions of the courts of equity established principles which were used to decide later cases, so it should not be thought that the use of equity meant that judges had discretion to decide cases on the basis of their personal ideas of what was just in each case. The division between the common law courts and the courts of equity continued until they were eventually combined by the Judicature Acts 1873– 75.

Sierra Leone is one of the smallest countries in the world situated on the West Coast of Africa and covers an area of 72,000 square kilometres.

It was a former British Colony gained independence on the 27th April 1961 and therefore English is its official language.

In the early nineteenth century, Sierra Leone became the centre of government for all British possessions on the West Coast of Africa. European contact with Sierra Leone was among the first in West Africa and Sierra Leone was one of the first West African British Colonies. Foreign settlement did not occur until 1787 when the British prepared a refuge within the British Empire for freed slaves. That year, the site where Freetown is now located, received the freedmen from Great Britain. These returned Africans were from all areas of Africa. It was at this juncture, that Sierra Leone attracted the authority of the British and hence became a Colony of Britain. The development of its legal system is not devoid from its political history.

Now that it was a colony, the British imported not their culture, politics and educational system, but all their judiciary system as discussed above.

In the advent of colonialism, the protectorate; the northern, southern and eastern part of the country were ruled by tribal leaders and hence, customary laws, whilst the colony part i.e. (Freetown) was governed by British rule and laws. If customary laws were in conflict with the British laws, the British laws took precedent; thus the reason of the Hut-tax war in 1898.

With colonialization in operation, the Britain introduced; the Magistrate’s Court, the High Court and the West African Court of Appeals led to the Privy Council, which was in Britain. Foreign officers were sent to various provinces as District Officers.

After Sierra Leone gained its independence in 1961, a sovereign relationship began with its colonial master. One important implication of its independence was that the West African Court

 

of Appeal was dissolved from its legal system, though the Privy Council maintained it status. Replacing the West African Court of Appeal, Sierra Leone instituted its own appeals court.

Ten years later in 1971 when a republican constitution immerged, the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone was established, and the previously supreme court in the colonial system was transferred into the High Court. The Supreme Court became the highest court of appeal replacing the Privy Council in Britain. The new Supreme Court comprised of five judges including the Chief Justice; three of whom would constitute a quorum. The Supreme Court building, known as Law Court, is located on Siaka Stevens Street in the central business district in the capital city of Freetown.

Two decades down the line, a bloody civil broke-out in the country in 1991. The war campaign was initiated by the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) which was led by Corporal Foday Sankoh.

According to the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report, the war can be attributed to official mismanagement of the country’s economy and other natural resources, institutional systematic corruption, denial of justice and other social facilities among others. The RUF employed brutal tactics including murder, physical mutilation, rape, and the recruitment and abduction of child soldiers. At the war’s peak, the RUF controlled large swathes of territory and diamond fields in the countryside. The war devastated each and every sphere of governmental institutions including the judiciary.

 

Following a 1999 peace agreement, the United Nations Armed Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) was established, but the RUF violated the agreement and chaos ensued, prompting Britain to deploy troops. The war eventually came to an end when the government, with the aid of international community and other campaigners, signed a second ceasefire agreement and a peace accord with the RUF in 2000 and 2001, respectively. In July, the British withdrew from Sierra Leone, and in November UNAMSIL began a gradual withdrawal that was completed in January 2006, with a peace-building operation left behind.

 

The Judiciary of Sierra Leone has metamorphosed since the war ended. That in no way should not signal that there are not challenges in terms of finance, capacity, corruption and possible political interferences in its operations. Now that the war has ended for the past eighteen years, an academic case could be made to made s detailed study of the Office of Chief Justice within the realm of the Justice Sector.

After independence in 1961, the first Sierra Leonean substantive Chief Justice was Sir Salako Benka-Coker, whilst the current Chief Justice, Desmond Babatunde Edwards. Below is a list of chief justices since the Supreme Court was established:

• Justice Abdulai Hamid Charm (11 Jan 2016– Dec 2018)
• Justice Valesius Thomas (2015) (Acting)
• Justice Umu Hawa Tejan-Jalloh (25 Jan 2008–2015)
• Justice Ade Renner Thomas (2005-2008)
• Justice Abdulai Timbo (2002–2004)
• Justice Desmond Edgar Luke (1998-2002)
• Justice Samuel Beccles Davies (1993-1998)
• Justice Sheku Fomba Kutubu [4] (1987-1993)
• Justice Eben Livesey Luke (1978-1985)
• Justice Christopher Okoro Cole (1970-1978)
• Justice Banja Tejan-Sie (1967-1968)
• Justice Gershon Collier (1967)
• Sir Justice Samuel Bankole Jones (1963-1965)

Now that the war has ended, it is therefore time that deeper study is this Office is done so as illuminate it importance for a more progressive society.

 

1.1  AIMS & OBJECTIVES

The major objective of this research is to critically examine the role of the Office of the Chief Justice in the dispense of justice in post-conflict Sierra Leone.

In evaluating the above objective, the work assesses the contribution of the Office of the Chief Justice in the dispense of justice in post-war Sierra Leone.

Moreover, the work highlights some of the political bottlenecks confronted by the Office of the Chief Justice in dispensing justice in post-war Sierra Leone.

Furthermore, this work showcases some of the challenges encountered by the Office of the Chief Justice in the dispense of justice in post-conflict Sierra Leone.

Finally, this work provides plausible and relevant suggestions/recommendations for the improvement of the Office of the Chief Justice in post-conflict Sierra Leone.

 

1.2  STATEMENT OF RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

In post-conflict Sierra Leone, the Office of the Chief Justice has been plagued with political undue influence to the extent that its ability to be independent and dispense justice fairly has been gravely undermined.

 

1.3  RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The following research questions will address the statement of the problem:

• What is the constitutional and/or statutory mandate of the Office of the Chief Justice?
• To what extent is the Office of the Chief Justice of the Republic of Sierra Leone impartial and independent in the administration of justice?
• How is the Chief Justice appointed and removed from office in Sierra Leone?
• Are there enough protections to insulate the Office from political influence, manipulation or control?
• To what extent has the Office of the Chief Justice contributed to good governance and human right protection in Sierra Leone?
• Is the Office of the Chief Justice a threat to the dispense of justice in post-war Sierra Leone?

1.4  PROBLEM STATEMENT

Indices of under-development would include and not limited to undue political influence over state institutions, public corruption and huge capacity gap in performance among others. Sierra Leone being an under-developed country is equally characterized by these features especially in

 

the judiciary. According to the Truth & Reconciliation Commission Report, the failing judiciary is a significant factor of the 10-years bloody civil conflict.

 

According to the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, there is lack of security of tenure of judges and justices of the Supreme Court including that of the Chief Justice. As opposed to that of the American system where the president of the Federal Supreme Court is guaranteed life-tenure, the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone section 137 makes it clear that the Chief Justice must retire at aged 65yrs. One prominent example is the resignation of Chief Justice Charm in December 2018 barely six months after the Sierra Leone Peoples’ Party (SLPP) won the general elections, whose appointment was made by the losing All Peoples’ Congress Party (APC). According to the Cocorioko Publication on 19^th December 2018, the publication was alleging that the former Chief Justice appointed by the APC Government was forced to resigned, the publication cited political pressure brought upon the former Chief Justice, so as to get party supporter into office.

It must be underscored that sub section 7 gives provisions of how and when justices of the Supreme Court including the Chief Justice can be removed from office.   Prior to the war and now after the war, this tenure of office was and is not guaranteed, judges and justices were and continued to be removed from offices without any recourse to the Constitution or due-processes; thereby amounting to political interference. The independence of the judiciary was/is systematically destroyed. The current practice of employing retired judges on a “contract basis” also compromises their independence and merely complicates the problem.

 

Another problem of independence of the office of the Chief Justice by extent the judiciary is financial independence. That despite the Judiciary headed by the Office of the Chief Justice and stand as a separate arm of government, yet its budget is totally controlled and manipulated by the Executive wing of the government. This had and continues to result to under-finance of the operations of the Office and the judiciary as a whole. According to 28^th July 2015 Edition of the Politico Publication, $800,000 was allocated to the Office of the Chief Justice and the judiciary, whilst $1,966,938 was allocated to the Office of the Secretary to President. In another publication of the Awoko 14^th August 2019, the tabloid quoted the Chief Justice in the presentation of the judiciary annual budget for 2019. Chief Justice Babatunde Edwards was

 

quoted to have said that the judiciary is faced with a limited number of judges and magistrates to cover all Magistrate and High Courts in the country. He stressed as the body responsible to ensure that justice is done such constraints must be tackled in order to offer speedy trials of cases, which will help the judiciary to maintain its integrity and respect. According to the Newspaper, Justice Edwards added that the issue of inadequate judges and magistrate is not only the problem they are faced with but also cited inadequate logistics, furniture and equipment for the effective and efficient running of the courts. It was quoted that the Chief justice underscored the need for funds to undergo regular training abroad in court management, ICT, and record management, so as to keep abreast with international standards. Awoko quoted the current Chief Justice Edwards to have said; “The judiciary is in dire need of money. The fact that the judiciary is not receiving adequate funding means the duty of delivering justice is being undermined.” For this financial year 2019, the judiciary is requesting for Le18 billion, whilst the Ministry of Finance gave them a budget ceiling of Le16 billion.

According to the Truth and Reconciliation Report, The removal of all measures of financial autonomy from the judiciary by the All Peoples Congress Party (APC) regime in the 1970s served to impoverish the administration of justice. Impoverishment remains the state of affairs in the judiciary even up to the war. Without budgetary independence, the judiciary has been unable to determine its priorities or to plan for an efficient system of justice delivery. This to a very large extent has resulted to a good number of the population, especially in the rural areas of the country being denied the access of justice – an index of development.

 

As highlighted in the Background Introduction, the outbreak of the war affected each and every sector of the country and government. The judiciary was not exempted. Must of the judges and justices sought refuge from other countries. Naturally the country suffered from massive brain- drain. Reports continue to show that the country is yet to recuperate form this massive loss of talents as a result of the war. A rather mal-functioned judiciary prior to the war due to talent gap, was made exacerbated after the war. Not only in terms of talent after the war, but also of infrastructures.

 

Secondly, the general view of society is that the judiciary is under-staffed. This again was re- stated by the Report of the Truth & Reconciliation Commission Report. Ironically, in the Capital

 

City of Freetown, the Judiciary is one of the over-staffed. It could be awkwardly noticed that the presence of the Office in the form of courts are virtually absent in the provinces especially in towns and villages. With resources being invested in this sector over the years, a good number of the population is denied access to this all-important office in the form of justice.

 

Now that the war has ended, there has being a general increase in violence and crime in communities; is it that we continue to experience a failing judicial system, or that the office of the Chief Justice is incapacitated to administer justice due to political influence and interference? Can this Office foster reforms and thus create value and confidence in the eyes of the recipients of justice?

 

It is said that he whose pays the pipers call the tune. If this saying is anything to go bye; can we say that the Office is incapacitated because the Chief Justice is being appointed by the Head of the Executive? We continue to experience that once we have a change in government through national elections, the new government will tend to constructively dismiss the incumbent Chief Justice and thus force a resignation. The subsequent appointment will be cronies and natural supporter of the new government thus, creating a blur in the independence of the judiciary headed by the Chief Justice.

 

 

1.5  LITERATURE REVIEW

Literature Review gives a broad understanding of the topic researched from different perspective of different writers. It gives the researcher the opportunity to understand related writings and the context upon which those literatures were done and how far those writings will support or be distinguished from the current work. The ultimate objective is to add to knowledge.

Academic literatures dealing with the role and functions of the office of the Chief Justice may have saturated both the legal and academic fields.

 

The book Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court, published in March 22, 2010 by Jeff Shesol examined the position of Chief Justice more closely; describing the origins and duties, and explore the court under each of the seventeen chiefs justices served. The nomenclature; Chief Justice may change depending on the jurisdiction and context in which it is

 

used. For example, the United States of America, he is known as the President of the Supreme Court. Most importantly, it’s explored the background and careers of each chief prior becoming Chief Justice. The work discussed the cultural times and puts their rise and tenure in the nation’s context, while discussing some of the key associate justices who sat with each of the seventeen. Each chapter also focused on some key decisions of the Chief Justices’ courts.

 

In Sierra Leone, we have maintained the name as in Britain because of our political history and now a member of the Commonwealth jurisdiction. The Pursuit of Justice by Lord Woolf following    his                    retirement               in     2005     from     the     office     of     Lord     Chief     Justice. The book covered developments that have occurred in a variety of legal areas, and which continue to be relevant in a changing world, including the rule of law and the constitution, the role of judges, access to justice, human rights, medicine, the environment, crime and penal reform, challenges facing the Office and legal education.

 

 

“Judicial Review Systems in West Africa  –A Comparative Analysis” published in 2016 by International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) Stockholm, Sweden. Its chapters offered, among others, insights into the historical evolution of constitutional justice systems in the region as well as trends in the contemporary design, structure and mandates of institutions responsible for judicial review and constitutional justice in 16 West African countries.

 

 

For a full understanding and grasp of the topic touching and concerning the A Critical Evaluation of the Role the Office of the Chief Justice in the Dispense of Justice in Post-war Sierra Leone, the under listed were also reviewed:

• The Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report: this report attempted to articulate the

reason(s) for the 10yrs bloody civil conflict in Sierra Leone. A major part of this report is dedicated to the failings or success of the judiciary as a contributor to the war in Sierra Leone more so the Office of the Chief Justice. Most importantly, recommendations were also forwarded with the aim to avoid such happenings in the future

• A paper presented by Mogoeng WA Mogoeng – Chief Justice of the Republic of South

Africa in the 2013 Annual Human Rights Lecture of the Stellenbosch Law Faculty

 

titled “The Implications of the office of the Chief Justice for Constitutional Democracy in South Africa” UNIVERSITY OF STELLENBOSCH, CAPE TOWN (Thursday, 25 April 2013).

 

• The 1975 ECOWAS Treaty: this document established and mandated for a Community Court of Justice (CCJ) to adjudicate disputes related to the interpretation and operation of the Treaty, as revised in 1993. The details for the operation of the Court were established by the 1991 Protocol on the Community Court of Justice signed by the ECOWAS High Contracting The Court became operational in December 2000. Seven judges sit on the Court, each serving a five-year term. No two judges can be nationals of the same state.

 

 

• The 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone. The role or functions of the Office of the Chief Justice are constitutional; the 1991Constitution of Sierra Leone out lined the mandate of such an important office. A review of this document gave the researcher the spirit of the law and the motive of the drafters. It also enabled the researcher to be able to highlight the variance between theory and practice; what is and what it is ought to

 

 

1.6  METHODOLOGY

The researcher adopts a mixture of both qualitative and quantitative methodologies approaches. This chapter considers the sources and methods used for the collection, analysis and presentation of data. Attempts are made to put quantitative data in the form tables, charts and were possible mean, median, trends and frequencies are applied to give meaning/interpretation to data collected.

On the other hand, qualitative data which includes desktop review, focus group discussions are also employed to giving credence and explanation to the quantitative analysis.

It should be noted, that both quantitative and qualitative use of data should act as complement giving the researcher a thorough weapon in handing the issues concerned so as to achieve efficiency and effectiveness in evaluating the role of the Chief Justice in the dispense of justice in post-war Sierra Leone.

 

1.7  SCOPE & LIMITATIONS

This study targets the Office of the Chief Justice and its role in the dispensation of justice in post-war Sierra Leone (2002 to date.). The research does not present a comparative study, but rather would have drawn analysis from other jurisdiction in arriving at a logical conclusion.

The research has been limited by a number of factors:

Though finance could not be over emphasized as a limitation, yet it proved to be serious challenge for a student at this academic level in a one of the poorest countries on earth to undertake.

Access to relevant literatures, library facilities and most importantly access to internet facilities proved very difficult to obtain relevant information.

Furthermore, time allocated for the completion of this exercise seems largely inadequate if more detailed information is to be obtained.

Moreover, this topic is politically sensitive, respondents were reluctant to answer some of the questions posed; some even turn-down researcher’s appointment in accessing them claiming to be busy with their own work-schedules.

Despite the above, the rules governing the writing of this thesis were largely observed and its limitations had very little impact in the results/outcome of this exercise.

 

1.8  SETTING OF RESEARCH

This academic research contains five (5) main chapters with respective sub-topics. Subsequent chapters are defined with the aim to put the reader in context and to manage expectations.

Chapter one is considered the introductory chapter and gives an over-view of the entire work. It contains the Aim & Objective of the research, its significance and the questions the research provides answer for. Deliberate attempt is made in the structure to guide the reader through the subsequent chapters.

 

Chapter Two is termed the Literature Review.

This chapter makes attempt to desk-review the work of related thesis with the aim to broaden the researcher’s perspective of the subject matter. In this chapter, the research draws both convergences and divergences of such literatures with the current research.

In some cases, literatures are used to support concepts and to give meanings to certain phenomena.

Methodology is Chapter Three. This section will highlight the methods used to collect data; it will also define its population and use of samples. The use of various forms of methods explained in this chapter has a direct effect on the subsequent chapter which is chapter four.

The fourth chapter is the Analysis & Findings chapter. This is the nucleus of the thesis. Quantitative data collected are be analyzed by using various statistical and mathematical formulae. The use of these formulae give meaning to results and this is supported qualitative data. This chapter attempts to answer the research questions as set out in chapter one and in the process will be meeting the set objectives.

The final chapter is Chapter Five, which contains the Conclusion & Recommendations. This chapter has a direct link with the Problem Statement as stated in Chapter One. The Recommendations are forward looking and are very invaluable to policymakers, academics, lobbyists such as civil societies organizations engaged in the justice sector and the general public who will be interested in the role of the Office of the Chief Justice in the dispensing of justice in post-war Sierra Leone.

 

1.9  SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

The topic and scope of the research proved to be politically sensitive; however, it is crucial for the development of the Office of the Chief Justice. The failings of the judiciary more so the office of the chief justice is quoted by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report as one of the cardinal reasons for the civil war in Sierra Leone.

 

There is therefore need to zero-in on the role of this all-important office in the governance of Sierra Leone – because the failings of such an office would prove very detrimental to the rule of law and the people of Sierra Leone in the future.

Secondly, this thesis will prove to be very important to both lecturers and students of Law in their Constitutional Law Module. As this academic discuss will amplify the constitutional mandate of the office of the chief justice in Sierra Leone, students and lecturers of Constitutional Law will be able to make comparative study with another jurisdiction especially within the African context.

Now that the war has ended, it makes an academic sense to evaluate how far and to what extent the role of the Office of the Chief Justice has metamorphosed since the end of the war. It is crucial that seventeen years since the official conclusion of the war, researches are done bringing to the lime-light the role of such an Office in the dispensation of justice as an index of development. This kind of research will influence policy-makers and probably in amendment or introduction of law that will foster and promote the development of the office of the Chief justice in the dispensation of justice in post-war Sierra Leone.

Furthermore, within the province of research, this thesis will serve a literature review for other researchers in this area of the law.

The recommendations from this discuss would also prove very informative not only to civil societies engaged with justice and the judiciary, but also with Constitutional Review Committee. Though time of the Committee has expired, yet the current new government prima facie promised to review the work of the Committee and the white paper of the previous government. Publishing this academic document will provide contemporary status of the Office and will be convincing enough to suggest reform to the mandate and modules operandi of such an important office. Even where laws or amendments are promulgated, this research will prove vital in couching those laws/amendments for a better functioning of the Office. Therefore, Sierra Leone’s role of the Office of the Chief Justice will serve as a blue-print and standards for other post-war societies.

 

• Introduction

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Knowledge is said  to be a field as consisting of  three layers. The first layer are referred to primary studies that researchers conduct and publish that would impact on policies add to existing knowledge and change attitudes.

Second are the reviews of those primary studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. In some sense would often give reason(s) for additional primary studies.

The third layer of knowledge, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinions and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of field.

In composing a literature review, it is pertinent to highlight that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as real even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources explored, there are a number of approaches that could adopted depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Argumentative Review: This form of review examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply imbedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint is to give credence to reforms or change in policies and attitudes. However, it can also be used to introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews.

Integrative Review: a form of review that critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

Historical Review: Historical literature review focuses on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review: A review does not always focuses on what is found in the primary studies [the findings], but how the research came about those findings [method of analysis]. This approach helps highlight ethical and moral issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own study.

Systematic Review: This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem.

Theoretical Review: The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems.

This chapter thus adopted different approaches to review related literatures relevant to the topic of this academic work so as to produce the maximum benefit to knowledge.

2.1  The American System

In the United States of America, Article III of the Constitution establishes the Federal Judiciary. According to Section I of the above article, states that “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” pt

Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court; however its organization is permitted by Congress. This power was first exercised in the Judiciary Act of 1789. Over the years, various Acts of Congress have altered the number of seats on the Supreme Court, from a low of five to a high of 10. Shortly after the Civil War, the number of seats on the Court was fixed at nine, which remain to the present day. Today, there is one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices of the United States Supreme Court. Like all federal judges, justices are appointed by the President and are confirmed by the Senate. They, typically, hold office for life; this largely guaranties and protects their independence of the judiciary from the political branches of government.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. The Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution

The Chief Justice as head of the Supreme Court plays a very important role in our constitutional system of government. Firstly, as the highest court in the land, it is the court of last resort for those looking for justice. Secondly, due to its power of judicial review, it plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power. Furthermore, it protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution. Finally, it sets appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities. In essence, it serves to ensure that the changing views of a majority do not undermine the fundamental values common to all Americans, i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law.

The decisions of the Supreme Court have an important impact on society at large, not just on lawyers and judges. The decisions of the Court have a profound impact on all sphere of the nation.

Using a Historical Review approach, the researcher attempted to review the role of the Office of the Chief Justice in the United States of American; called the President of the Federal Supreme Court in the book; Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court, published in March 22, 2010 by Jeff Shesol. This provided a deeper analogy of the operations of the Supreme Court of America and powers of the President of the Court and how power affected the political dynamics in the United States of America.

In 1937, prior to his second-term, President Roosevelt had suffered legal defeats in the courts. After his landslide re-election, the President set out to reform the Supreme Federal Court. His “reform” of the courts among other things included additional justice to the Supreme Court for every current justice over the age of 70. It became the most controversial proposal of his presidency. The court was on a mission to combat what the justices viewed as a great danger to the basic principles of American democracy. The White House was on its own mission to save not just the New Deal, but also its restoration of the nation.

Both the court and the White House paid a considerable price for their insularity and secrecy. The justices, of course, were isolated by design. But the White House and the Justice Department created their own insularity, pursuing their goals with such surprisingly successful secrecy that they gave few people, even within the administration, the opportunity to warn Roosevelt of the dangers he faced.

Many opponents of the proposal viewed it as undue tampering with the institution, or excessive presidential power and a threat to the Constitution; amounting to undue influence.

The justices of the Supreme Court in the 1930s included: George Sutherland, James McReynolds, Willis Van Devanter, Pierce Butler and Owen Roberts; were largely opposed to the New Deal. Four others; Louis Brandeis, Harlan Fiske Stone, Benjamin Cardozo and, somewhat precariously, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes mostly supported the reform. In 1937 when the court-packing fight began, most of the justices had been on the bench for well over a decade, and none had been appointed during Roosevelt’s first four years.

During the first months of controversy, Justice Owen Roberts who was described as chief opponent to the reform was reported to have been called into the White House for discussions. This did not change his position and the rest of colleagues. In July 1937, that despite the sitting Chief Justice was in favour of the reform, it was declared unconstitutional; thus the court proposal subsequently died in the Senate. It was widely described as the most devastating defeat Roosevelt had ever experienced in the presidency of American history.

Shesol does not engage directly with the scholarly debate over whether the court-packing controversy was responsible for the shift in the court’s behavior. The traditional story, supported by some of the leading historians of the New Deal, maintains that the pressure from Roosevelt persuaded Roberts, and perhaps others, to shift positions. Other historians — mostly legal scholars — argue that the court-packing fight had little or nothing to do with the court’s shift, that it represented instead a slow and steady evolution of constitutional law that long preceded the controversy. But even without taking an explicit stand, the book suggested a plausible argument that falls somewhere between these two interpretations.

One of many important contributions to an understanding of this controversy is the powerful description of the extraordinary opprobrium the court confronted as it began to overturn New Deal measures in 1935. Indeed, it was the deep unpopularity of the court that helped embolden Roosevelt to challenge it in 1937. In those first years of the New Deal, Shesol suggests, the conservative justices were stunned by the boldness and, they thought, radicalism of the New Deal; their opinions seemed to reflect their alarm and caused them to take positions even more conservative than they had in the recent past. Two years later, similarly stunned by the criticism they were receiving, the justices began to slowly back away from their most conservative views.

The book also draws attention to a more mundane but nevertheless considerable factor in the shift of the court. In 1937 Roosevelt supported, and Congress approved, a bill to assure retired justices that they would continue to receive their judicial salaries even after retirement. The absence of such benefits had deterred some aged justices from retiring; once the pensions were assured, several of them resigned.

“Supreme Power” is an impressive and engaging book — an excellent work of narrative history. Even readers who already know the outcome will find it hard not to feel the suspense that surrounded the battle, so successfully does Shesol recreate the atmosphere of this great controversy. There are many ways to explain what become known as the “Constitutional revolution of 1937,” but Shesol’s book is — at least for now — the most thorough account of this dramatic and still contested event.

Doing a historical review, means that event(s) is recounted and it gives credence to the status quo. The review of the above book brings out clearly the extent to which justice can be served and the level of independence and more so the political pressure that can be exerted by the other arm of government.

The researcher is able to identify with the author, that undue political pressure that can be call to bear on the judiciary, more the office of the Chief Justice; which again is very much common in developing countries such as Sierra Leone.

Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court is not geared towards an academic debate but rather recounting history; this dissertation brings in facts and figures to help crystalized the extent to which this great Office can effect and affect justice in the lives of the populace in a nation as Sierra Leone.

 

2.2  The Office of the Chief Justice: The British System

 

The United Kingdom operates a Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty; the Supreme Court has much more limitations in its powers of judicial review than the constitutional or supreme courts of some other countries such as Sierra Leone.

The creation of a Supreme Court for the United Kingdom was first introduced in a consultation paper published by the Department of Constitutional Affairs in July 2003. The argument made was that the separation of the judicial functions of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords from the legislative functions of the House of Lords should be made explicit. That paper noted the following concerns:

1. Whether there was any longer sufficient transparency of independence from the executive and the legislature to give assurance of the independence of the judiciary.
2. The requirement for the appearance of impartiality and independence limited the ability of the Law Lords to contribute to the work of the House itself, thus reducing the value to both them and the House of their membership.
3. It was not always understood by the public that judicial decisions of “the House of Lords” were in fact taken by the Judicial Committee and that non-judicial members were never involved in the judgments. Conversely, it was felt that the extent to which the Law Lords themselves had decided to refrain from getting involved in political issues in relation to legislation on which they might later have had to adjudicate was not always appreciated. The new President of the Court, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, has claimed that the old system had confused people and that with the Supreme Court there would for the first time be a clear separation of powers among the judiciary, the legislature and the
4. Space within the House of Lords was at a constant premium and a separate supreme court would ease the pressure on the Palace of

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005, Part 3, Section 23(1) and s. 23 (whole section) established the Supreme Court was formally on 1 October 2009. It assumed the judicial functions of the House of Lords, which had been exercised by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (commonly called “Law Lords”), the 12 professional judges appointed as members of the House of Lords to carry out its judicial business. Its jurisdiction over devolution matters had previously been exercised by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in the UK for civil cases, and for criminal cases from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population.

The Supreme Court’s focus is on cases that raise points of law of general public importance.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court only exceptionally hears criminal appeals from the with respect to devolution issues. The Court also determines devolution issues. These are legal proceedings about   the   powers of the three devolved administrations—the Northern Ireland Executive and Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales.

The Chief Justice’s Report 2018 presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 5(1) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 gave an overview of the judiciary system in the United Kingdom. Particular attention was given to gains made in all sectors of the judiciary including budget and cost for the year under review. A digital case system has been introduced in the criminal courts over the past two years which has already saved the need to print 33 million pages of paper. A similar system will come into force in the civil courts.

A mention of seven billion British Pound Starlings was received from the Justice Ministry for the year under review; which was mostly spend on modernization of facilities of the courts. It is aimed at improving access to justice and efficiency in the courts as well as upgrading court buildings.

Secondly, in a separate annex to the report were challenges faced by the Office of the Chief Justice in dispensing of justice in the United Kingdom.

These include among others; judges are facing physical threats and an increasing torrent of personal abuse online, some of which is designed to intimidate them, according to the Chief justice, these form of intimidation have the capacity of undermining the rule of law; particular mention was made of those handling family issues and sex cases.

From this report, it is an indication that judges in whatever jurisdiction are faced with undue influence and intimidation in doing and performing their mandates.

This report will also give credence to the hypothesis of this dissertation.

 

2.3  The Office of the Chief Justice: South Africa

 

The research also reviewed a paper presented by Mogoeng WA Mogoeng – Chief Justice of the Republic of South Africa in the 2013 Annual Human Rights Lecture of the Stellenbosch Law

Faculty “The Implications of the Office of the Chief Justice for Constitutional Democracy in South Africa” University of Stellenbosch, Cape Town (Thursday, 25^th April 2013).

According to Wikipedia, Mogoeng Mogoeng was born on 14 January 1961 in Goo-Mokgatha village in the North West Province. His father was a miner and his mother a domestic worker.

Mogoeng received a Bachelor of Laws in 1985 from the University of Natal. There he had been active in the government of Bophuthatswana as a High Court prosecutor in Mahikeng. He later obtained a Master of Laws by correspondence from the University of South Africa in 1989.

He was the chair of Lawyers for Human Rights’ Bophuthatswana chapter and a part-time lecturer at the University of Bophuthatswana (now North-West University).

In 1997, Mogoeng accepted an appointment to the North West High Court. He then became a judge of the Labour Appeal Court in 2000 and the Judge President of the North West High Court in 2002. In October 2009, in President Jacob Zuma’s first raft of judicial appointments, Mogoeng was elevated to the highest court in South Africa, its Constitutional Court^. He was appointed simultaneously with Chris Jafta, Sisi Khampepe and Johan Froneman. Less than two years later, in mid-2011, Mogoeng was nominated for appointment as Chief Justice.

Chief Justice Mogoeng believed that constitutional democracy would only be safe, provided a truly independent body of Judges loyal to the oath of office or solemn affirmation, and is in place and ready to administer blind justice to the aggrieved.

Government, according to him is predicated by its very nature is divided into three branches. The Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. Each tier enjoys real autonomy beginning with the national and provincial governments to the smallest municipality you can imagine. Their success or failure is entirely or largely in their hands. Similarly, the Legislative branch of government is led by the Speaker and the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces at national levels, by Speakers at Provincial levels, again by Speakers at local government level. They are also institutionally independent.

These two branches of government have their own vote, they are vested with the power to determine the administrative support they need, to work out job descriptions and salary levels for their personnel and to decide which projects to embark on according to their own order of priority. But the same cannot be said of the South African Judiciary and in many other African Countries.

It is from this background that Chief Justice Mogoend emphasized the need of independence of the judiciary especially the Office of the Chief Justice. At the core of judicial independence is the complete liberty of individual Judges to hear and decide the cases that come before them: “no outsider – be it government, pressure group, individual or even another judge – should interfere in fact, or attempt to interfere, with the way in which a Judge conducts his or her case and makes his or her decision.” In addition, judicial independence includes security of tenure, financial security and institutional independence. Institutional independence concerns the day to day operations of courts and is required to ensure that they are not directly or indirectly controlled or seen to be controlled by other arms of government. It is to this end that the phased transformation of court administration is directed, and this underscores the urgency and critical importance of judicial self-governance.

The Chief Justice of the Republic of South Africa, Justice Mogoeng, is the most senior Justice and presides over the Constitutional Court; which is the apex Court of a single Judiciary. In addition, in his judicial role, the Chief Justice represents the Judiciary nationally and internationally, which entails various coordinating and administrative responsibilities. It is also required to perform a multiplicity of constitutional and statutory duties and functions. The Chief Justice is regarded as the de facto head of the judiciary.

This paper presented by the Chief Justice of South Africa, could not be isolated from reality in Sierra Leone. That though the Justice Mogoeng presented the challenges, he shielded from presenting possible recommendation(s) in combating the listed challenges.

It is therefore the researcher’s objective not to only present challenges faced by the Office of the Chief Justice in Sierra Leone, but will also present possible recommendation(s) in mitigating listed challenges in post-conflict Sierra Leone.

 

2.4  The Office of the Chief Justice: ECOWAS

The legal systems in West African countries are uniquely diverse merely because of the political history and difference colonial heritages and have been shaped by a great variety of customary and religious norms, thus affecting the design of each country’s judicial system. At the same time, this region is growing together under the umbrella of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). It was initially established in 1975 to promote economic integration and regionalism, the pressures and consequences of armed conflict, authoritarianism and a weak democratic culture that characterized the region in the 1990s later forced ECOWAS to redefine its mandate in 1993 to include cooperation on political and governance issues.

The creation of institutions such as a sub-regional parliament and a Community Court of Justice underscores this shift, and signals an increasing interest in the rule of law and constitutionalism in the region—which in turn requires understanding the legal concepts applied in each state. Such a common knowledge of the different concepts facilitates collective progress and cooperation that prevents mutual misunderstanding.

In recent years, constitutions in West Africa and elsewhere have tended to give the judiciary the power to assess the constitutionality of laws. According to Constitute, an online database of the current constitutions of over 194 countries, 80 per cent of constitutions include a formal constitutional review mechanism (predominantly judicial) for checking the compliance of political authorities’ actions and decisions with the constitution. This process seeks to bridge the gap between a merely semantic paper constitution and a normative constitution that effectively constrains and regulates the exercise of political power and protects human rights. Although the extent of authority granted to national constitutional review institutions varies greatly by country, all constitutions in the region offer at least some degree of judicial constitutional review.

It is from this backdrop that the researcher decided to review a book titled “Judicial Review Systems in West Africa –A Comparative Analysis” by Markus Böckenförde, Babacar Kante, Yuhniwo Ngenge and H. Kwasi Prempeh. This book was published in 2016 by International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) Stockholm, Sweden.

The book sets out for two objectives.

First, it compares the variety of constitutional justice institutions in 16 West African states and analyses the diverse ways in which these institutions dispense justice and promote democratic development. In all these various states, the writing illuminates trajectory the Office of the Chief Justice can play in this province. There is no single best approach in dispensing justice as a lead office: different legal traditions tend to produce different design options.

Secondly, the book also seeks to facilitate mutual learning and understanding among countries in the region, especially those with different legal systems, in efforts to frame a common West African system. The book is intended to serve as a reference in all 16 countries, either as a resource for comparative study or as a collection of good practices to promote reforms and identify benchmarks.

The book also provides an overview of the laws as written; it does not examine the extent to which they have been implemented or are respected. This brings to play the role of the Office of the Chief Justices; it attempted to make a comparative study of these Offices in their respective states. Though it failed to rank states as the most progressive, using the office as a base and premise, yet, also attempted drawing out similarities and difference in structures and mandates according to laws.

Secondly, it shied away from ranking states that respects the role of the Office in despising justice. Rather the book underscored the Offices’ possible contributions if their role is brought to the limelight. Moreover, did it explore the unwritten conventions and informal dynamics that may govern the delivery of constitutional justice.

Finally, the book was conspicuously silence about the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice (CCJ). Established in 1991 and located in Abuja, Nigeria, the court hears cases from Nigeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Cote d’Ivoire, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo.

The 1975 ECOWAS Treaty included a mandate for a Community Court of Justice (CCJ) to adjudicate disputes related to the interpretation and operation of the Treaty, as revised in 1993. The details for the operation of the Court were established by the 1991 Protocol on the Community Court of Justice signed by the ECOWAS High Contracting Parties. The Court became operational in December 2000. Seven judges sit on the Court, each serving a five-year term. No two judges can be nationals of the same state.

CCJ jurisdiction is set out in Article 9 of the 1991 Protocol which states that the court “shall ensure the observance of law and the principles of equity in the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Treaty.” The Court has ruled that this includes jurisdiction over human rights cases. This principle was codified by a 2005 ECOWAS Supplemental Protocol, which states that the CCJ has jurisdiction to hear human rights cases and expands the admissibility rules to include disputes between individuals and their own member states. As a result of these amendments, the CCJ is thus four courts in one: an administrative tribunal for ECOWAS, a human rights court, a court of arbitration, and an Inter-State dispute resolution tribunal. This Court can consider cases brought by:

• Individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights
• Individuals and corporate bodies to determine whether their rights have been violated by an ECOWAS official
• Member states and the Executive Secretary, to bring an action against a state for failure to fulfill treaty obligations
• Member states, the Council of Ministers, and the Executive Secretary for determination of the legality of any action related to ECOWAS agreements
• ECOWAS staff who have exhausted remedies under ECOWAS Rules and Regulations; and
• Member states’ national courts who may request to refer an issue related to the interpretation of ECOWAS agreements to the CCJ.

Article 10 of the Protocol further provides that the CCJ may express an advisory opinion on requests of the Treaty if the Authority, Council, or one or more member states requests it.

There is no need for exhaustion of domestic remedies in order to apply to the CCJ. However, for cases alleging a human rights violation in a member state, applications should not be anonymous and cannot be made while the same matter is pending before another international court.

The ECOWAS instruments do not specify the remedies that the Court can provide. In past cases, remedies ordered by the Court included both awards of damages, as well as specific orders such as an order for the immediate release of an illegally detained journalist (see Manneh v. Gambia).

Decisions of the Court are final and binding under the 1991 Protocol. Member states and ECOWAS institutions must take all measures necessary to ensure execution of the Court’s decision. Under Article 24 of the 2005 Protocol, the execution of a judgment of the Court must be in the form of a Writ of Execution, and the Chief Registrar is required to submit this Writ to the member state. The member state is required to execute the judgment according to its national courts. The member state must also determine the national authority to execute the Court’s judgment and inform the Court of the relevant authority.

 

2.5  The Office of the Chief Justice: The Sierra Leone System

 

The Supreme Court of Sierra Leone is the highest court in Sierra Leone forming part of the judiciary. As oppose other jurisdictions, it consists of five justices including the Chief Justice. It has final jurisdiction in all civil, criminal, and constitutional cases within Sierra Leone. The Supreme Court has the exclusive constitutional power to overturn ruling of lower courts within the jurisdiction of Sierra Leone. The Judges including the Chief Justice who sit in the Court are nominated by the President of Sierra Leone and must be confirmed by the Parliament of Sierra Leone by at least 60% majority vote in order to take office.

As a developing country, the Truth & Reconciliation Commission’s Report is of the view that the mal-functioning of this institution played a critical role as an ingredient to the 11years brutal war.

The Commission found that the judiciary is understaffed and underpaid. Poor remuneration causes many of the best legal minds to decline appointments to the bench. Powerful members of society are able at times to select judges to hear cases. This practice has brought the judicial process into disrepute.

The judicial appointment process has been abused by successive governments. Several politically-motivated appointments have been made by each of the post-independence governments. These abuses have severely compromised the independence of the judiciary. The lack of civil society representation on the Judicial and Legal Service Commission undermines the independence of that important body. The lack of security of tenure of judges during the rule of the APC regime permitted the government of the day to interfere at will with the judiciary. The independence of the judiciary was systematically destroyed. The current practice of employing retired judges on a “contract basis” also compromises their independence.

The removal of all measures of financial autonomy from the judiciary by the APC regime in the 1970s served to impoverish the administration of justice. Impoverishment remains the state of affairs in the judiciary. Without budgetary independence, the judiciary has been unable to determine its priorities or to plan for an efficient system of justice delivery.

The majority of people in Sierra Leone do not have meaningful access to the courts. This renders the rights enshrined by the Constitution largely empty. The outbreak of war caused almost all judges, magistrates, law officers and private practitioners to flee from the provinces. For several years during the war, there were only two places in the provinces – Bo and Port Loko – that had magistrates’ courts operating. Many people resorted to extra-judicial methods to solve their problems. Access to affordable legal representation in Sierra Leone is a serious problem.

Most Sierra Leoneans are unable to pay for the services of solicitors. As a result many people are forced to languish in prison cells and police lock-ups for inordinately long periods. Corruption is a perennial problem in the judiciary. It pervades all levels of the judiciary.

It is the ambition of this dissertation to bring to light solid recommendations that will change approach, policies and mind-set. This might even ignite further research with the aim of dispensing justice in post-war Sierra Leone.

 

WEST AFRICA

West Africa provides a unique context for such a study, as it encompasses the two main legal traditions and cultures—common law and civil law (the latter with both French and Portuguese forms)—practiced across the rest of sub-Saharan Africa.

This book, which has benefited from the intellectual contributions of many researchers—drawn from both anglo-phone and francophone West Africa—with extensive knowledge of the subject and the region. For national policymaking communities, it illuminated gaps in the design of constitutional justice systems, thereby highlighting the need for reforms to improve the effectiveness of the institutions and enhance the promotion of the rule of law.

For the academic community, it makes an important contribution to the potential development of comparative constitutional law in an area with a clear gap in academic scholarship. For the legal practitioner in the community, which includes constitutional lawyers, judges and legal officers, it provides a medium for mutual learning and exchange about different systems of constitutional justice design.

 

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY

3.0  Introduction

 This chapter defines the collection and analysis of data. It would also provide reasons why some instruments were utilized rather than others.

It considers the sources and methods used for the collection, analysis and presentation of data. Attempts are made to put quantitative data in the form tables, charts; were possible mean, median, trends, frequencies and other statistical and mathematical formulae are applied to give meaning/interpretation to data collected. On the other hand, qualitative data will also be employed giving credence and explanation to the quantitative analysis.

It should be noted, that both quantitative and qualitative use of data should act as complement giving the researcher a thorough weapon in handing the issues concerned so as to achieve the highest level efficiency and effectiveness in evaluating the role of the Chief Justice in the dispense of justice in post-war Sierra Leone.

 

3.1  Population & Sample

Population is said to the broader group of people to whom the researcher intends to generalize the results of his study. Samples will always be a subset of researcher’s population.

The population for this study included the Chief Justice, justices of the Supreme Court and judges in all the cadre of the courts in Sierra Leone, Lecturers and students of Law at the University of Sierra Leone, legal practitioners and civil societies in the realm of justice – representing the general public.

From the population; random sampling techniques were employed with the aim to achieve the desired result(s), without drawbacks on quality of work.

The sample is first stratified as below; then random sampling was done on the stratified position:

• Justices, judges of the higher courts of judicature and

Their inclusion into the study is justified on the grounds that they actually interacting with the law and rulings based on the law. Crucially, judges and justices of the higher court of judicature are most prone to undue political interference in the course of their work.

• Law Lecturers and The inclusion of them in this stratum, based on the fact that

they teach and learn the law as it is. Their inclusion is for them to opine about theory of the office of the Chief Justice.

Civil Societies (general public). These are the final recipients of justice from the courts as administered by the Chief Justice. These are the lobbyists for the improvement of justice in Sierra Leone. Their input will make a qualified judgment of the Office being studied. These would include the following:

• Centre for Accountability & Rule of Law (CARL): CARL is an independent civil right and not-for-profit organization promoting a just society for all persons in Sierra Leone. This is done through monitoring institutions of accountability, outreach and advocacy for institutional transparency, capacity building and empowerment of citizens. CARL is a fruit of the Special Court Monitoring Group (SCMG), which was established in May 2004 as a partnership project of the

International Centre for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) and the Coalition for Justice and Accountability (COJA) to exclusively monitor and produce objective reporting on proceedings before the Court for both local and international community. This organisation has been oprating in Sierra Leone for the past 10years, it continues to engage in human right advocay, provideing support to the judiciary and to the Office in paricular. This organiation had been very active in championing the right of pregnant girls denied schooling after the ebola epidemic and the right of ebola survivors at the level of the ECOWAS Court of Justice & Human Rights.

• Campaign for Good Governance (CGG): Campaign for Good Governance

(CGG) is a registered national non-government organization advocating for good governance in Sierra Leone. CGG was formed in 1996 after the first multi-party elections in three decades. Its focus is to increase citizen participation in governance through advocacy, capacity building in public institutions, and civic education in order to build a more informed civil populace and a democratic State. CGG works with key partners including international NGOs and government agencies such as the Police Force, the justice sector to effectively deliver programs, and belongs to several associations and research communities.

• Open Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA): The creation of the West Africa Civil Society Institute (WACSI) as a pioneering capacity-building institution. It focuses on transparency and governance issues in the region. In 2013, WACSI provided capacity building support to over 400 civil society practitioners from about 350 civil society organizations from ten West African Countries (Cote d’Ivoire, Niger, Benin, Zimbabwe, Guinea, Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, Liberia and Sierra Leone).

It supports awareness-raising on public service delivery; including human rights and justice and also advocacy for the free movement of goods and services. OSIWA pioneers free and fair public elections across the West African sub-region. This is done alongside its sister network program called Open Society Justice Initiative, the West and Central Africa Regional Consultation on the Draft Global Best Principles on National Security and Freedom of information.

 

3.2  Sources & Data Collection Methods

The study was mainly base on the primary and secondary data at appropriate places.  In order to obtain a comprehensive analysis of the problem, a dual approach was utilized in the study. Both quantitative and qualitative data collection techniques will be utilized. These techniques are complimentary and have the advantage of providing a numeric assessment in addition to the much-needed explanations regarding the study.

In addition, effort was used to extract information from various official documents including text books, magazines, legal reports and opinions, various website pages, articles and relevant literature; including papers presented at workshops etc. were all utilized to provide a critical discuss to the problem raised and to complement the literature in the thesis.

 

3.3  Questionnaires

Data were collected using both structured and unstructured questionnaires as major research instruments. A questionnaire as an instrument for collecting data, are pre-printed sets of questions around a particular subject area for the purpose of collecting data in a survey. One big advantage of questionnaires is that; apart from being inexpensive, questionnaires are also a practical way to gather data. They can be targeted to groups of your choosing and managed in various ways. You can pick and choose the questions asked as well as the format; thus making it very flexible. They offer a way to gather vast amounts of data on any subject. They can be used in a wide variety of ways.

In this study, the use of questionnaires proved valuable because of it inexpensive nature and also because it is by far one of the most flexible means of collecting data.

The sample chosen were literate, and therefore the researcher had no need to guide the respondents; giving them the free will to express themselves.

Fifty structured questionnaires were administered at each levels of the stratified samples of the population; bringing a good mix and reaction to the same questions but from different perspective.

 

3.4  Interview

These are discussions held with respondents and can be in the form of questions, giving respondent to explain his understanding about the subject area. One big set-back the of this type of data collection technique is that it takes considerable time of the respondent, however on the part of the researcher, he has opportunity to take note of facial reactions to questions and most importantly could pose important question(s) that was not pre-planned; hence leading questions can be easily posed for better understanding of the subject matter. Interviews with respondents are by far more personal as opposed to the above instrument discussed.

There are basically three types/forms of interviews: structured, semi-structured and unstructured interviews.

Structured Interviews: these consist of a series of pre-determined questions that all respondents/interviewees answer in the same order. Data collected will tend to be straight- forward because researcher can compare and contrast different answers given to the same questions.

In this study, structured interviews were held with all justices of the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone including the Chief Justice and Management staff of his Office. These respondents will provide vital information in evaluating the above topic. They also provided credence to the answers given in the questionnaires. Questions posed were mainly geared towards answering the Research Questions.

 

Semi-Structured Interviews: with this type of instrument in research, it contains both components of structured and unstructured interviews. There are pre-printed and pre-determined sets of questions; but the interview progress is framed in such a way that the respondent/interviewee is given the opportunity to give further information or to clarify a particular issue. On the part of the researcher, he has the opportunity to pose follow-up questions that might not have been pre-printed or determined.

In this study, semi-structured interviews were held with the Director of Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA), Executive Director – Centre foe Accountability and Rule of Law (CARL), Director Campaign for Good Governance (CGG) as civil societies engaged in the justice sector. Also semi-structured interviews were held with leading legal practitioners such as

 

Francis Margai, Rashid Dumbuya, Emmanuel Shears-Moses and Dr. Binneh Kamara – also doubling as lecturers in the University of Sierra Leone at the Law Department.

Unstructured Interviews: are usually the least reliable in research, because no questions are pre-determined prior the interview and data collected are analyzed in an informal manner. Unstructured interviews can be associated with high level of biases and comparison of answers given by different respondents tends to be difficult due to the differences in formulation of questions.

The researcher used this type of interview mainly for students of law and the general public interested and knowledgeable about the role of the office of the Chief Justice in the dispense of justice in post-conflict Sierra Leone.

 

3.5  Data Presentation & Analysis

Quantitative data collated are presented in statistical diagrams such as graphs and tables to facilitate analysis, interpretation and comparison.

In analyzing statistical data, researcher made use of various mathematical ratios, formulae, and percentages in quantitative term and in qualitative terms to draw conclusions. Data related challenges faced by the Office of the Chief Justice including its mandates among others, can be best understood when analyzed in statistical format

 

Qualitative data are of cause in literature form. These forms of data, gave credence and explanations to figures in the quantitative format.

 

3.6  Desktop Review

This is the back born of the qualitative data collected. The researcher embarked on a desktop review of literatures so as to combat limitations regarding finance and time constraints. Desktop reviews were particularly done with the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone and the Report of the Truth & Reconciliation Commission.

Secondly, the researcher reviewed political-sensitive cases since the conclusion of the war in order to determine pattern and trend of the decisions of the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone; these included:

➢      Jabbi v Sierra Leone People’s Party & 3 others (S,c MISC. APP No. X/2011)

• Kamara & Others v Electoral Commission (SC.CIV.APP. 1/2011)

➢      Sierra Leone People’s Party & 2 Others v Christiana Thorpe & National Electoral Commission (SC.MSC.APP3/2011)

• A Petition against The Election of His Excellency Ernest Bai Koroma as President of the Republic of Sierra Leone as per the Declaration of the Result of the Presidential Elections of 17^th November 2012 (SC No 4/2013)

➢      Alhaji Sam Sumana v The Attorney General & Victor Bockarie Foh (S.C 4/2015) SLSC 1203

 

 

• Introduction

CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

This Chapter attempts to present and analysis data collected with a view to reach at findings in evaluating the Office of the Chief Justice in the dispense of justice in post-war Sierra Leone.

Researcher would analysis the establishment of the Office of the Chief Justice using the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone Act No6.

Equally important, this Chapter will also seek to bring to bear rulings of political-sensitive cases reached by the Supreme Court for the time span of 2002 (the official date the war ended) to June 2019. The trend or patterns of these rulings would indicate to an extent of its independence; which would include its financial independence.

Data collected from various sources including from the Office of the Chief Justice, are presented in pictorial diagram for better understanding of the issues involved.

In presenting the findings; the researcher will analysis the era of each Chief Justice since the end of the war in 2002 to date.

It is therefore hoped that by the end of this chapter, justice would have been done in evaluating the Office of the Chief in dispense of justice in post-war Sierra Leone.

4.1  Creation of the Office of the Chief Justice

 

The Judiciary of Sierra Leone is established by Chapter XVI of the Constitution of Sierra Leone, 1991 with the Chief Justice as its head. All other Judges are subordinate to him.

Administratively, the Office of the Chief Justice performs these functions:

• Overall Judicial Policy Formulation, Supervision and Oversight
• Improving the Court Systems
• Judicial & Legal Service Commission
• Rules of Court
• Public Affairs
• Internal Audit

 

The Constitution in Section 120 subsection (4) establishes three Courts, viz: the Supreme Court; the Court of Appeal and the High Court.

The Supreme Court is the final Court of appeal, and has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all questions relating to the interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court sits to hear cases which require final decision with a bench of 5 Justices maximum. All of them need not be substantive Justices of that Court: two of them could be Justices of Appeal. If the matter before the Supreme Court does not require a final decision of the Court, say for instance, interlocutory applications, such as an application for leave to file documents after the time for doing so has expired, 3 Judges can form a quorum. But the party which loses the application could ask for that decision to be reviewed by the full bench of 5 Justices, and their decision is final. Below are the justices of the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone.

The Court of Appeal is the most senior to the Supreme Court. It has no original jurisdiction in the sense that no proceedings of whatever nature can be instituted in that Court. It can only hear appeals coming from the High Court, in cases decided by that Court at first instance, or, on appeal from the Magistrates’ Courts.

The Court of Appeal is fully constituted for the hearing of appeals, with a bench of 3 Justices of Appeal. But a single justice can preside over an application which does not require the final determination of an appeal. If a party is dissatisfied with that decision, it can apply to a full panel of three Justices for that decision to be reversed. The current Court of Appeal constitutes the following justices:

The High Court has original jurisdiction to hear and determine all civil claims save those which might involve the interpretation of a Constitutional provision. It also has jurisdiction to try serious criminal cases, i.e. generally speaking, cases which warrant sending the convicted person to a term of imprisonment exceeding 5 years.

Magistrates’ Courts: are not provided for in the Constitution. They are established by the Courts’ Act, 1965. They are described as inferior Courts – i.e., Courts subordinate to the High Court because it is tied up with our colonial past. In English legal history, the Common law Courts, such as the original Court of King’s Bench (now the Queen’s Bench Division – i.e. our present High Court) and the Court of Common Pleas, were the only Courts with jurisdiction to try criminal cases – cases dealing with the Common Law Offences. Magistrates’ Courts were in later years established to try less serious offences which were entirely statutory and could determine cases which they believe could be punished with a maximum term of imprisonment of 7 years; but those cases have to be started by way of preliminary investigation in the Magistrates’ Courts, first, and only later can they be converted to trials in accordance with procedure laid down in the Criminal Procedure Act, 1965.

Currently, the Judiciary of Sierra Leone has twenty-nine magistrates with Magistrates Court(s) in very district headquarter town.

This distinction between the two kinds of Courts has been maintained in post-independence Sierra Leone. So, whilst all Judges are appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission by Warrant under his hand, Magistrates are recommended for appointment, but their appointment is done by the Human Resource Management Office.

All of these provisions have been retained save for minor amendments. For instance, the minimum number of substantive Justices of the Supreme Court has been raised to 7; for the Court of Appeal, 9; and for the High Court, 15. The increase in the minimum number of Judges in each of these Courts has been necessitated by the enormous increase in the number of cases reaching the Courts.

 

4.2  Mandate of the Office of the Chief Justice

 

The Judiciary of Sierra Leone is established by Chapter XVI, section 120 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone, 1991 vested authority of the Judiciary on the Office of the Chief Justice as its head.

The Judiciary is an independent and autonomous wing of the Government of Sierra Leone

As head of the Judiciary, the Chief Justice sits a Chair of the Supreme Court, which is the highest appellant court in the land (Section 122:1). Secondly, this court is mandated to given interpretation to legal instruments including the national constitution (Section 124:1).

Administratively, the Office of the Chief Justice performs these functions:

• Overall Judicial Policy Formulation, Supervision and Oversight
• Improving the Court Systems
• Judicial & Legal Service Commission
• Rules of Court
• Public Affairs
• Internal Audit

 

From interviews held with all the Supreme Court judges including the Chief Justice, Civil Societies engaged with judiciary of Sierra Leone and private legal practitioners, it was recorded and found out that 100% of the sample was of the view that the mandates as enshrined in the Constitution were most appropriate for a progressive as ours.

4.3  How is the Chief Justice appointed and/or removed?

 

According to section 135:1, the President acting on the advice of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission and subject to the approval of Parliament shall appoint the Chief Justice.

From interviews held with the stratified sample, 60% of respondents were of the view that the President should appoint the Chief Justice, whilst 40% suggested that the Chief Justice should be appointed by the Judiciary and Legal Commission and then approved by Parliament.

With respect to the removal of the Chief Justice, Sections 137:7&8 prescribe the process to be ascribed to in the removal of Chief Justice.

According to respondents, 100% were satisfied with the procedures as prescribed in the Constitution for the removal of the Chief Justice.

To this end, an indication from the respondents suggested that the Chief Justice is fully protected from political directives from the Executive or otherwise.

 

4.4  A Critic of the Various Chief Justices that served in Post-conflict Sierra Leone Historical Overview

Legal issues in Sierra Leone can be traced during the British colonial period in 1807, when the country hosted the first Vice Admiralty Court in May 2, 1807 to adjudicate cases of captured foreign vessels involved in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. The Country also served as the Chief Administration of the British West Africa states of Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Ghana and the Gambia and on the 15ht December, 1910, the foundation stone was laid for the Chief Justice Chambers what is today known as the Law Court Building.

The Judiciary of Sierra Leon has metamorphosed since independence in 1961. After independence in 1961, the first Sierra Leonean substantive Chief Justice was Sir Salako Benka-Coker.

Sir Henry Lightfoot Boston had acted as Chief Justice pre- independence and before he became Speaker of the then Legislative Council, the precursor of Parliament. He became the first Sierra Leonean Governor-General after Sir Maurice Dorman retired in 1962.

Sir Salako was succeeded by Sir Samuel Bankole-Jones. In 1966 he was appointed the first Sierra Leonean President of the Court of Appeal in succession to Mr. Justice Cecil Geraint Ames.

Post 1961 and before 1971,   the person appointed Chief Justice was the most senior Judge on the High Court (then called the Supreme Court) bench. And the Chief Justice was the person who acted as Governor-General in the absence of that personality. So, even though the President of the Court of Appeal heard appeals from judgments given by the Chief Justice, the latter was still head of the Judiciary. This was perhaps a left-over from the pre- independence days when appeals from High Court judgments were heard by the West

 

African Court of Appeal, a bench of substantive but peripatetic Judges drawn from the then British West African colonies: Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Ghana and Gambia; and then after the dissolution of that Court by the Sierra Leone and Gambia Court of Appeal. Appeals from those Courts went to the Privy Council in the UK, the final Court of Appeal.

After Sir Samuel went up to the Court of Appeal, the next most senior High Court Judge, Mr. Justice C. Okoro E. Cole was appointed acting Chief Justice. Early in 1967, Justice Okoro Cole was abruptly removed as Acting Chief Justice and was sent to New York as the country’s Permanent Representative (now, Ambassador) to the UN. He replaced Dr. Gershon Collier, who on his return to Sierra Leone was appointed Chief Justice. This was clearly unconstitutional as he had not sat on the High Court Bench.

A lawyer, T. S. Johnson actually challenged his appointment in Court though the case was never heard, as the military took over political power soon afterwards, and formed the National Reformation Council (NRC). The NRC appointed the then Speaker of Parliament, Mr. (later, Sir) Banja Tejan-Sie, as Chief Justice. He remained until 18 April, 1968 when the NRC was itself overthrown by enlisted men in the army.

Justice Tejan-Sie oversaw the orderly transfer of power to Mr. (later, HE Dr.) Siaka Stevens 13 days later, and he became Acting Governor-General. Justice R. B. Marke was then appointed Acting Chief Justice but he died in August, 1968. Justice Okoro Cole was recalled from New York and was appointed acting Chief Justice, and later Chief Justice.

On 19 April, 1971 Sierra Leone became a Republic, and Justice Cole became its first ceremonial President. Mr. Siaka Stevens remained Prime Minister. Mr. Justice J. B. Marcus- Jones, then a Justice of Appeal was appointed Chief Justice. Two days later, on 21st April, 1971 Mr. Stevens became 1st Executive President. Justice Cole reverted to his position as Chief Justice.

A Supreme Court was established as the final Court of Appeal. Appeals to the Privy Council were abolished. Thereafter, appointment to the office of Chief Justice no longer depended on one’s seniority on the High Court Bench. As under the 1961 Independence Constitution, responsibility for judicial affairs rested with the political head, i.e. The President, and before that, the Prime Minister.

Just before the passing into law of the 1978 Constitution, an Act was passed to amend the 1971 Constitution. Responsibility for judicial affairs was transferred to the newly created office of Attorney-General and Minister of Justice. Between 1961 and April, 1971 the office of Attorney-General had been a public office.

As of 21 April, 1971 the holder became a Minister with Cabinet rank, though still not responsible for judicial affairs. After, 1978, the holder of the office acquired responsibility for judicial affairs. There have been calls for the two offices to be separated and the CRC has do recommended.

Between 2013 and 2014, the judiciary has increased the number of magistrates and judges at the lower and upper level, helping expedite matters with more ease. During this period, the judiciary has also employed more judges, which has drastically reduced the workload of judges. Further, cases are now assigned to judges within a reasonable timeframe, reducing the hearing delays.

The increased numbers of judges and magistrates have improved the conditions of service considerably. The judiciary also instituted a mechanism for judges to receive returns on concluded cases, in addition to a salary increase which has attracted more senior level judges to the bench.

Furthermore, some courts now use electronic recordings to fast track cases and keep more accurate information.

Working environment has improved considerably-air-conditioned court rooms in most high courts. Additionally, there is a huge refurbishment ongoing on the major court building to make it more convenient and comfortable as working environment.

Though the reference period of the study is 2013-2014, significant changes like the bringing the Local Courts into the mainframe judicial mechanism cannot be ignored. The Local courts for several reasons (proximity, less intimidating, process understood, less expensive, speedier resolution of matters etc.) is the only available mechanism the greater population outside Freetown access and encounter justice.

Era of Justice Abdulai Timbo (2002–2004)

 

The former Political Party Registration Commission (PPRC) Chairman, Dr. Abdulai Timbo, also served for a long time a High Court judge in the Sierra Leone judiciary. Prior to his appointment into the judiciary in the 70s and 80s Justice Timbo ventured into politics and engaged in tough political battles (for a parliamentary seat) in the Sanda chiefdom, northern Sierra Leone. Timbo lost twice in that political direction. He was then appointed Chief Justice of Sierra Leone by the SLPP Government under the presidency of the Late President Kabbah.

Described as one of the finest and brilliant Chief Justice, Justice Timbo was appointed into Office at the time when the country was coming out of its 10 years civil conflict, hence described as the most challenging period of the country’s history. One of the greatest challenge faced by this Chief Justice, was when the Sierra Leone Bar Association decided to petitioned the appointment of the then Minister of Justice & Attorney General Eke Ahmed Halloway on 31^st May 2002.

The Sierra Leone Bar Association decided to challenge the appointment and swearing-in of Eke Ahmed Halloway as Justice Minister and Attorney-General, claiming that his assumption of office without parliamentary approval “raises serious constitutional issues.” This legal challenge was brought about by the Bar Association with the aim in the Supreme Court “to test the constitutionality of the procedure adopted by the President in effectuating the said appointment by way of an interpretation of inter alia Sections 56, 57 and 64 of the 1991 Constitution.” It was held that the President followed due procedures in appointing and swearing-in of the Minister of Justice & Attorney General.

Era of Justice Ade Renner Thomas (2005-2008)

 

Ade Renner-Thomas was born in 1945, and a Creole by ethnicity. Thomas was born and raised in Freetown, Sierra Leone’s capital and obtained a Ph.D. in Land Law. In 2005, he was appointed to the position of Chief Justice by former President, Ahmad Tejan Kabbah. In 2008 Renner-Thomas retired as Chief Justice.

In the era of Chief Justice Ade Renner Thomas, one of his greatest challenges was when he was called upon by Lawyer Jenkins Johnson, to investigate the matter of the late Harry Yansaneh as handled by Magistrate Adrian Fisher. There were claims that the Magistrate

 

tampered with the Coroner’s report of death of the victim. The alleged case of murder was politically sensitive and was of hug public interest.

 

Era of Justice Umu Hawa Tejan-Jalloh (25 Jan 2008–2015)

 

Justice   (Mrs.)   Tejan-Jalloh   attended    the    Harford    Secondary    School    for    Girls in Moyamba, Moyamba District and then the St. Edward’s Secondary School in Freetown. She proceeded to Fourah Bay College University of Sierra Leone and Njala University. In 1974, she got a scholarship to study at the prestigious Columbia University in New York, where she did her Master of Laws. She later continued her legal education at the University of London. Appointed by President Bai Koroma, Chief Justice Tejan-Jallon is the first and only woman to have served in such a capacity. Her reign could be said to be challenging because it was during the season of the country’s presidential and parliamentary elections with claims and counter-claims. Under the tenure of this Chief Justice, the following cases and challenges were brought to her attention:

Jabbi v Sierra Leone People’s Party & 3 others (S,c MISC. APP No. X/2011) This matter was presided over by Chief Justice (Mrs.) U. H Tejan-Jalloh in the era of President Bai Koroma. This case was an intra-party dispute wherein the plaintiff Dr. Bu-Buakie Jabbi pray for interlocutory Notice of Motion against the Sierra Leone People’s Party, John O Benjamin, Jacob J Saffa and Alex M Musa; accusing the defendants of failing to uphold provisions of the Party’s Constitution. The interlocutory injection was thus granted.

 

Kamara & Others v Electoral Commission (SC.CIV.APP. 1/2011)

This matter was presided over by the Chief Justice (Mrs.) U. H Tejan-Jalloh in the era President Bai Koroma. The plaintiff in this case alleged electoral fraud and prayed that a fresh ballot be held in the chieftaincy elections held in Lokomasama Ciefdom, Port Loko District. In its ruling, the Court agreed with the prayers of the plaintiff.

Sierra Leone People’s Party & 2 Others v Christiana Thorpe & National Electoral Commission (SC.MSC.APP3/2011)

 

This matter was brought into court by the opposition party against the electoral Commission and its chairperson. Presided over by one of the justices of the Supreme Court, Justice Bash-Taqi rather than its substantive chair, Justice U H Tejan-Jalloh, the plaintiff prayed to the court for an enlargement of time in its appeal of a substantive matter. This prayer was upheld.

 

A Petition against The Election of His Excellency Dr. Ernest Bai Koroma as President of the Republic of Sierra Leone as per the Declaration of the Result of the Presidential Elections of 17^th November 2012 (SC No 4/2013)

This is a petition brought to the Supreme Court by the opposition political party of the Sierra Leone Peoples’ Party (SLPP) in the persons of its presidential candidate and running mate. The substantive matters were alleged irregularities during the 2012 Presidential Elections, and the prayer was for the court to invalidate the results of the said elections. According to the ruling: “we do find that the Petitioners/Respondents have failed to comply with several of the Election Petition Rules and accordingly we strike out”

 

Era of Justice Valesius Thomas (2015) (Acting)

 

At the retirement of Chief Justice Tejan-Jalloh, Justice V Thomas was then appointed at acting Chief Justice in 2015. Serving only for less than one-year, Justice Thomas chaired and handed-down one of the most controversial ruling in the history Sierra Leone. This was the case of Alhaji Sam Sumana v The Attorney General & Victor Bockarie Foh (S.C 4/2015) SLSC 1203.

Many legal practitioners condemned the ruling handed-down in favour of the Government; commentators are of the opinion that the spirit of the Constitution was absolutely neglected. See details in 4.6

 

Justice Abdulai Hamid Charm (11 Jan 2016– Dec 2018)

Justice Abdulai Hamid Charm was nominated as Chief Justice by President Ernest Bai Koroma on 28 December 2015 to succeed retired Chief Justice Umu Hawa Tejan-Jalloh.

 

 

His appointment was approved by Parliament on 15 January 2016, and was sworn in as Sierra Leone’s Chief Justice on 21 January 2016. According to report, Chief Justice Charm was said to be the first chief justice to have fully studied Law in Sierra Leone.

 

On Wednesday 19 December 2018, Justice Abdulai Hamid Charm resigned his position as head of the Judiciary. The 56-year old, Abdulai Hamid Charm, was born 20 July 1962 in Kambia in the Northern Province of Sierra Leone, and was not due for retirement anytime soon. His early departure has prompted questions as to whether he was pushed out of office for political expediency by the newly elected President Maada Bio of the SLPP. Charm studied at FBC, where he was awarded a Bachelor of Laws with Honours in 1990 and was called to the Bar in October 1991 after attending the Sierra Leone Law School. He also studied Human Rights and Democratization in Africa at the University of Pretoria, South Africa in 2000. Under his tenure as Chief Justice and head of the judiciary, there were several landmark and controversial judgments including: the bigamy trial between Alie Kabba, a presidential candidate of the SLPP opposition party against presiding and the former APC Minister of Lands, Diana Konomanyi and the two-day sentence of a 70 years old man for sexual penetration. Also for the first time High Court Judges were appointed to all the regions. A release from the Office of the President, informed that the President had accepted his resignation and in view of the vacancy created by the resignation and pursuant to Section 70 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone 1991 (Act No.6 of 1991), the President announced Justice Desmond Babatunde Edwards, JA as the appointed Chief Justice subject to Parliamentary approval.

 

4.5  Trends of Rulings handed down by the Supreme Court on political cases

In an attempt to assess, appreciate and analysis the level of political influence brought to bear upon the Office of the Supreme Court where the Chief Justice sits as chair, the research now analysis rulings of the Court on political-sensitive cases since the end of the war in 2002:

1. Jabbi v Sierra Leone People’s Party & 3 others (S,c MISC. APP No. X/2011) This matter was presided over by Chief Justice (Mrs.) U. H Tejan-Jalloh in the era of President Bai This case was an intra-party dispute wherein the plaintiff Dr.

 

Bu-Buakie Jabbi pray for interlocutory Notice of Motion against the Sierra Leone People’s Party, John O Benjamin, Jacob J Saffa and Alex M Musa; accusing the defendants of failing to uphold provisions of the Party’s Constitution. The interlocutory injection was thus granted.

2.      Kamara & Others v Electoral Commission (SC.CIV.APP. 1/2011)

This matter was presided over by the Chief Justice (Mrs.) U. H Tejan-Jalloh in the era President Bai Koroma. The plaintiff in this case alleged electoral fraud and prayed that a fresh ballot be held in the chieftaincy elections held in Lokomasama Ciefdom, Port Loko District. In its ruling, the Court agreed with the prayers of the plaintiff.

3.      Sierra Leone People’s Party & 2 Others v Christiana Thorpe & National Electoral Commission (SC.MSC.APP3/2011)

This matter was brought into court by the opposition party against the electoral Commission and its chairperson. Presided over by one of the justices of the Supreme Court, Justice Bash-Taqi rather than its substantive chair, Justice U H Tejan-Jalloh, the plaintiff prayed to the court for an enlargement of time in its appeal of a substantive matter. This prayer was upheld.

 

4.      A Petition against The Election of His Excellency Dr. Ernest Bai Koroma as President of the Republic of Sierra Leone as per the Declaration of the Result of the Presidential Elections of 17^th November 2012 (SC No 4/2013)

This is a petition brought to the Supreme Court by the opposition political party of the Sierra Leone Peoples’ Party (SLPP) in the persons of its presidential candidate and running mate. The substantive matters were alleged irregularities during the 2012 Presidential Elections, and the prayer was for the court to invalidate the results of the said elections. According to the ruling: “we do find that the Petitioners/Respondents have failed to comply with several of the Election Petition Rules and accordingly we strike out”

 

5.      Alhaji Sam Sumana v The Attorney General & Victor Bockarie Foh (S.C 4/2015) SLSC 1203

 

This was a case referred to the Supreme Court to interpret the National Constitution with regards the removal of the Vice-President by the sitting President. This matter was presided over by the Honourable Acting Chief Justice, Justice V. V Thomas.

The prayers of the plaintiff included:

• In all matters relating to the enforcement or interpretation of any provision of this Constitution: and
• Where any question arises whether an enactment was made in excess of the power conferred upon Parliament or any other authority or person by law or under this Constitution

 

 

It was held by:

• Justice O Hamilton: “The vacancy having been created by the expulsion of the Plaintiff from the APC party.

Based on the all what has been discussed in this judgment my answer to the two questions posed for determination is YES to both of them.

• Justice (Mrs.) Vivian M Solomon: In the light of the foregoing the

plaintiff’s action is hereby dismissed. Each party to bear its own costs.

• Justice E Robersts: In the result the several declaration and relief

sought by the plaintiff cannot be justified and are accordingly refused.

• Justice V Thomas (Acting Chief Justice): …That the relief for the

plaintiff are refused

..that the parties bear their respective costs of action.

• Justice Brown-Marke: I therefore concur in the orders made by the Learned Acting Chief Justice

In addition to the trend of rulings handed-down by the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone after the conclusion of the war, it is worth noting some significant developing in 2019.

After the 2018 Presidential and Parliamentary elections, in the then opposition political

 

party, the Sierra Leone People’s Party won the Presidential elections and then went ahead to petitioned parliamentary seats won by the then governing All People’s Congress Party (APC). The courts handed down rulings in favour of these said petitions in July 2019 in the court of first instance, thus removing those affected members of parliament from Parliament. However, the APC since had filed in appeals for review of those rulings which is yet to be assigned by the Office of the Chief Justice for the past 3months for the appeals to be heard. Listed below are the said appeal:

• Sirajin Munirr Rollings-Kamara (Appellant) & John Telson Koroma (Respondent)
• Hariyatu Ariantu Bangura (Appellant) & Emmanuel Sahr Gkeke (Respondent)
• Abu Bakarr F Sillah (Appellant) & Benjamin Turay (Respondent)
• Mohamed Sheriff Kasim Carew (Appellant) & Alieu Ibrahim Kamara (Respondent)
• Kemokoh Conteh (Appellant) & Ahmed Joseph Kanu (Respondent)
• Ahmed Mansaray     (Appellant)     &     Abdul     Muniru     Lansana (Respondent)
• Kadie Kallon (Nee Davies) (Appellant) & Josephine Jackson (Respondent)
• Momoh Kamara     (Appellant)     &     Tennison     Hindolo     Sandy (Respondent)
• John  Satty   Kargbo       (Appellant) & Horace E Vincent (Respondent)
• Osman Abdul Timbo (Appellant) & Abdul Sulaiman Marray-Conteh (Respondent)

Furthermore, the current Sierra Leone People’s Party Government, set-up a controversial Commission Inquiry to investigate the stewardship of the past APC-led Administration. According to the Government of Sierra Leone, this is in connection with sections 147-150 of the 1991 National Constitution of Sierra Leone. In this connection, the Sierra Leone Bar Association, filed in a Motion to the Supreme by way of Originating Notice of Motion,

 

seeking interpretation of the said sections.

 

4.6  Analysis of Challenges faced by the Office of the Chief Justice

The Judiciary of Sierra Leone 2016-2021 Strategic Plan set out the following as major setbacks or challenges in this sector. These include inadequacy of competent and trained personnel; the manual nature of the institution, which does not allow expedited processes, including limited technology on information, data, and records management; limited resources (finance, logistics, and equipment); and integrity issues among others. Currently, not all matters handled by the judiciary can be described as fair, impartial, and expeditious. Only in very few cases have such characteristics been observed, but when significant political and monetary interests are at play, the institution has been accused of compromise. The current ambiguous nature of the judiciary does not make it seem like an accountable institution, as there is little transparency. The conservative nature of the judiciary makes it difficult to be perceived as open and transparent. There is limited communication, access to data, and information. Outreach to the public and citizen interaction is next to nothing. However, the judiciary has taken some steps toward greater accountability, such as by publically publishing case judgments.

The growing concern over judiciary’s integrity is widespread. The institution itself has moved swiftly to establish an Integrity Management Committee, which thus confirms that there are integrity issues within the institution that needs to be addressed.

However, data gather from interviews conducted in the field, the following were considered as challenges facing the Office of the Chief Justice in dispensing justice in post-war Sierra Leone; place in order of magnitude.

1. Weak Administrative Structures
2. Personnel: Magistrates & Judges
3. Finance
4. Digital Technology
5. Social & family interference

 

The Judiciary of Sierra Leone 2016-2021 Strategic Plan set out the following as major setbacks or challenges in this sector. These include inadequacy of competent and trained

 

personnel; the manual nature of the institution, which does not allow expedited processes, including limited technology on information, data, and records management; limited resources (finance, logistics, and equipment); and integrity issues among others.

However, from field survey the following were found out:

1. 90% of Supreme Court judges and administrative staff are of the view that the greatest challenge facing the Judiciary by extension the Office of the Chief Justice is weak administrative structures
2. 100% of Civil Societies interviewed were of the view that lack of finance and corruption were the greatest challenge facing the Office of the Chief Justice
3. According to the Chief Justice, qualified personnel to man the courts in very part of the country is said to be the greatest challenge facing his office.

Is the Office of the Chief Justice adequately financed?

According to current practice at the Office of Chief Justice and by extension to the judiciary, all fines, fees and payments collected, are subsequently paid into the Consolidated Fund at the Bank of Sierra Leone. At the start of each financial year, the Judiciary led by the Office of the Chief Justice is expected to present its annual budget to the Ministry of Finance for subvention. Below are data for both amounts budgeted and actual subvention received from the Ministry of Finance:

Table 1

 

Years	Budgeted Amount’000	Actual Amount ‘000
2007	212,3000	91,000
2008	181,5000	156,8000
2009	197,800	163,100
2010	257,700	201,500
2011	262,900	220,600
2012	251,800	389,200
2013	300,000	294,700
2014	727,500	588,200
2015	944,300	183,000
2016	2,051,500	1,000,200
2017	2,083,000	1,195,000

Min. Of Finance 2018

 

The above data can be represented in pictorial diagram using bar chart for better interpretation. From the diagram below, it can be clearly seen that 2016 when Justice Charm was appointed as Chief Justice, the Executive wing of the government was very responsive to the finances of the Judiciary led by the Office of the Chief Justice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2

 

 

BUDGETED AMOUNT (Million Leones)

2,500.00

2,000.00

1,500.00

1,000.00

500.00

–

 

BUDGETED AMOUNT (Mil-lion Leones)

Table 2 represents the budgeted amount sent to the Ministry for its annual subvention.

From the table above, 2016 & 2017 represented the highest budgeted amount in Leones requested from the Executive wing of Government.

Table 3 (below), reflects what was actually expended in Leones to the Judiciary as annual subvention. Though 2017 could be said to be the most responsive to the finances of the Judiciary, yet it represented only 42.6% of that which was actually required for the said financial year.

 

Table 3

1,400.00

1,200.00

1,000.00

800.00

600.00

400.00

200.00

–

Chart Title

ACTUALS (Millions in Leones)

 

4.7  Interviews & Expert Opinions

As was highlightedin the 3^rd chapter, the researcher found time to interview various civil society organisations and personalities including justices of the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone. Six Civil societies organsations were choosen on the bases of their level of engagement with the Office and the justice sector in Sierra Leone.

• Center for Accountability & Rule of Law (CARL). CARL is an independent civil right and not-for-profit organization promoting a just society for all persons in Sierra This is done through monitoring institutions of accountability, outreach and advocacy for institutional transparency, capacity building and empowerment of citizens. CARL is a fruit of the Special Court Monitoring Group (SCMG), which was established in May 2004 as a partnership project of the International Centre for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) and the Coalition for Justice and Accountability (COJA) to exclusively monitor and produce objective reporting on proceedings before the Court for both local and international community. This organisation has been oprating in Sierra Leone for the past 10years, it continues to engage in human right advocay, provideing support to the judiciary and to the Office in paricular. This organiation had been very active in championing the right of pregnant girls denied schooling after the ebola epidemic and the right of ebola survivors at the level of the ECOWAS Court of Justice & Human Rights. The reasearcher had an interview with the Director of CARL by the name of Ibrahim Tommy ESQ. Mr. Tommy was very clear that the Office including the Judiciary had come a very long way since independence in 1961. He was of the view that the Office of the Chief Justice is pivotal in dispensing justice in post-war Sierra Leone. He agreed with the findings of the TRC Report that the failings and short-comings of the Office and the judiciary as a whole were enough ingredient for the 10 years civil conflict in Sierra Leone.

According to CARL and Mr. Tommy, the Office of the Chief Justice on paper is protected and grauranteed non-interference, but in reality and practice this is far from the spirit of the law. Mr. Tommy gave the example of the ruling of the Supereme Court of Sierra Leone regarding the case of the Samuel Sam Sumana (Former Vice President) v Victor Foe & Attonery General 2017. He was of the veiw that the spirit of the Constitution was clearly omimitted with the view to satisfy the ruling-party in government.

 

The Director of CARL blamed the Executive wing of the Government for delebrating impovishing the Office and the judiciary for political gains. Commenting about te challenges facing the Office, CARL is of the view that lack of credible, effective and efficient structures within the Office and judiciary can be attribute to the high level of corruption, mismanagaement of cases and files and all other vile resulting and affecting the poor state of justice in the country.

• Campaign for Good Governance (CGG): Campaign for Good Governance (CGG) is a

registered national non-government organization advocating for good governance in Sierra Leone. CGG was formed in 1996 after the first multi-party elections in three decades. Its focus is to increase citizen participation in governance through advocacy, capacity building in public institutions, and civic education in order to build a more informed civil populace and a democratic State. CGG works with key partners including international NGOs and government agencies such as the Police Force, the justice sector to effectively deliver programs, and belongs to several associations and research communities.

Its Country Director, Marcella Samba Sesay is a gender activist and polical commentator. She has been in the field of Civil Society for well over 15years.

According to Mrs. Samba Sesay, the justice sector, moreso the Office of the Chief Justice is very critical in our democracy and the operations of the rule of law. Though there has been considerable reforms within the justice sector; yet Director Samba-Sesay is of the veiw that considerable more has to be done if justice is to be efffectively and efficiciently dispensed in a post-conflict Sierra Leone. She pointed out that as with all if most of governmental institutions are very weak and thus very fragile to interference including government and other form of influence. She was the view that that Constitution has to be reviewed so as to creat enough fire-wall from influence and other forms of governmental ineterferenace and the like. According to CGG, the interference may not be vivid but are clear in the rulings handed-down by courts, the manner in which case-files are apportioned to magistrates and judges in the superior court of judicature., the procedure and process used appoint Chief Justices and how they leave office are very much contracy to the spirit of the Constitution. She accursed politicians for failing to review the current Constitution for political gains.

 

Mrs. Samba Seasy recalled that these vile are recorded in the TRC Report as ingredients responsible for the civil conflict in Sierra Leone.

Speaking on the challenges facing the Office as the judiciary as a whole, she is of the view that the current Constitution is a major bottleneck for the Office and the judiciary as a whole. Once the Office and the judiciary is grauranteed absolute independence, then all other vile and challenges will fall in place.

➢      Open Initiative For West Africa (OSIWA)

 

The creation of the West Africa Civil Society Institute (WACSI) as a pioneering capacity- building institution. It focuses on transparency and governance issues in the region. In 2013, WACSI provided capacity building support to over 400 civil society practitioners from about 350 civil society organizations from ten West African Countries (Cote d’Ivoire, Niger, Benin, Zimbabwe, Guinea, Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, Liberia and Sierra Leone).

It supports awareness-raising on public service delivery; including human rights and justice and also advocacy for the free movement of goods and services.

OSIWA pioneers free and fair public elections across the West African sub-region.

This is done alongside its sister network program called Open Society Justice Initiative, the West and Central Africa Regional Consultation on the Draft Global Best Principles on National Security and Freedom of Information.

 

Its Country Director, Mr Joe Pemagbie, agreed with the findings of the TRC Report with regards the Office and the judiciary as a whole in their contribution to the civil war in Sierra Leone. According to the Country Director, their involvement into Sierra Leone was to work with Governments in West Africa post conflict to help strenghten these governmental institutions, including the jusdiciary. According to the Country Director, he is of the view that weak institutions are always susceptible to both political interferance and other form of influence. According to the OSIWA Director, the Office of the Chief Justice and his Office have come a long way with respect to internal reforms and institutional support. But he also opined that the Government of Sierra Leone must make it a point to duty to protect the independence of such a delicate institution as the Office of the Chief Justice and the judiciary as a whole. Futher more, the Country Director

 

explained that if justice is to be seen to be effectively and efficiently dispensed for the enjoyment of the people of Sierra Leone, then it must start with a progressive constitution that is contempoary enough correcting the mistakes prior the war. Compared to the situation of South Africa, Sierra Leone has not a Constitution that learns from the mistakes prior the war. For the current Constitution came into effect during the war. Hence the need to reform and review the Constitution, taking onboard corrective measures in preventing institutional failure cannot the over-emphasised.

 

 

4.8  Resaerch Findings

Based on the analysis of the Office of the Chief Justice in the dispense of justice in post- cost Sierra Leone, the research found out that:

1. The key mandate of the Office of the Chief Justice according section 120 of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone is to dispense justice within the jurisdiction of Sierra Leone. It is because of this key mandate that the Office of the Chief Justice is the head of the Judiciary, an autonomous wing of
2. Since the Executive wing appoints the Chief Justice – another arm of government, the appointment of the Chief Justice is always partisain-based, and this do cast shadows over the independence of the Office of the Chief
3. Since the end of the war in 2002, the Office of the Chief Justice is riddled with political and other social interferance from friends, relations and other
4. 60% of all political-sensitive cases brought against the Government or governmental institutions were decided in favour of the Government or its institutions
5. The Office of the Chief Justice since the end of the war in 2002 has been plagued with under-funding, hence resulting in inadequate staff, corruption and general inefficiencies in its general operations
6. Since the Executive is authrorised to appoint the Chief Justice, much pressure can easily be bear on the Office of the Chief Justice to force resignation or contructive
7. Over the years since the end of the war, there are significance evidence of political interfrerence in handing-down judgements and rulings especially with political-sensitive cases. Most if not all these judgements/rulings handed down by the Supreme Court seem to have been skewed in favour of the Government.
8. The the Office of the Chief Justice is not represented across the country, thus is could be safely said that justice cannot be accessed by good number of the population in the rural areas of Sierra
9. Majority of the public are not au fait with the work and functions of the Office of the Chief
10. There is apparent need for the review of the National Constitution, to enable the Office of the Chief Justice to be free from political interference and equally be effective in the performance of its roles and functions
11. The functions and the role of the Office of the Chief Justice is pivotal in a democratic state and the rule of law.

 

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, RECOMMEDNDATIONS & CONCLUSION

5.0  INTRODUCTION

This last chapter of this dissertation aims at making a summary of findings in chapter four. The summary will help give a snap-shot of the survey undertaken.

Subsequently, this chapter shall make conclusion of the topic which shall be aligned with the research questions in the first chapter.

Necessary recommendations are given with the aim to facilitate change in approach, policies to various bodies and to ignite further study to the evaluation of the Office of the Chief Justice in post-war Sierra Leone.

5.1  SUMMARY

 Section 120 (1) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone Act No 6 of 1991, vests judicial power in the Judiciary, with the Chief Justice as the head. Section 120 (3) gives the Judiciary the authority and mandate to exercise its judicial functions while being subject only to the Constitution and any other law, but not subject to control and direction from any other person or authority. Although the constitution is clear about the independence and mandate of the Judiciary, in recent history, the Sierra Leone Judiciary has been perceived as unable to dispense justice in an independent, neutral and impartial manner.

The failure of the Judiciary as an institution is said to have contributed to causing the 1991 civil war.

The Truth and Reconciliation Committee (TRC) found that years of greed, corruption, bad governance and influence from the Executive, systematically weakened the Judiciary, and undermined its independence.

In addition, there was no meaningful access to the Courts for Sierra Leoneans and judges failed to uphold the rule of law. Over 15 years after the war, the Judiciary still struggles to gain credibility.

In addition, the Judiciary is faced with, case backlog, administrative failures, limited coverage, lack of public confidence and inadequate staffing in terms of numbers and competencies.

In post-conflict Sierra Leone, it is the researcher’s position that the Office of the Chief Justice has been plagued with political undue influence to the extent that its ability to be independent and dispense justice fairly has been gravely undermined.

It is from this backdrop that this dissertation sought to critically examine the role of the Office of the Chief Justice in the dispense of justice in post-conflict Sierra Leone.

Though there were serious limitations such as time, finances, access to data and information; even challenge in getting interviewees such as the Chief Justice and Supreme Court judges to respond to interviews.

Yet the researcher employed methods that would give credence and integrity to this work. It considered the sources and methods used for the collection, analysis and presentation of data. Attempts were made to put quantitative data in the form tables, charts; were possible mean, median, trends, frequencies and other statistical and mathematical formulae are applied to give meaning/interpretation to data collected.

On the other hand, qualitative data will also be employed giving credence and explanation to the quantitative analysis.

It should be noted, that both quantitative and qualitative use of data acted as complement giving the researcher a thorough weapon in handing the issues concerned so as to achieve the highest level efficiency and effectiveness in evaluating the role of the Chief Justice in the dispense of justice in post-war to Leone.

This dissertation came out with the following findings:

• That the mandate of the Office of the Chief Justice is most appropriate for a post-conflict Sierra Leone as enshrined in section 120 of the1991 Constitution Act No: 6
• That the process of appointment as per section 135 and removal of the Chief Justice as per section 137 respectively of the Constitution of Sierra Leone give enough protection to the tenure of the Office of the Chief Justice; thus guarantees to a very large extent its independency in the dispense of justice in post-conflict Sierra
• That the challenges faced by the Office of Chief Justice in post-conflict Sierra Leone by order of magnitude include; these factors are linked and inter-related:
  • Social Influence
  • Weak Structures
  • Personnel
  • Finance
  • Technology
  • Corruption

 

5.2  RECOMMENDATIONS

Having gone through the study, the following are recommendations for a better functioning of the Office of the Chief Justice in extension the judiciary in post-war Sierra Leone:

To Government

Resource Allocation: there is an urgent need in increased funding for the Judiciary. This will enable the institution to address issues of staff shortages. This would especially include magistrates and judges in every corner of the country. As was highlighted in the findings, the Office cannot be seen in every part of the country, meaning that justice is denied from good part of the population of Sierra Leone. There are also specialized staff that are needed in the specialized staff that are needed in the process of dispensing of justice; such as: justice; translators. Improve resource allocation will enable to properly and staff efficiently staff the Office.

Management Information Systems (MIS): The Office of Chief Justice needs to establish or roll-out a robust management and information system with a M&E outlook. Monthly statistics, outlining the number of cases and analysis, should be generated for the Chief Justice and the Master and Registrar to help them assess performance of judges as well as the courts. This will support internal accountability, performance related issues, and decision making. The Judiciary needs to urgently upgrade its records and information management including achieving to a digital system. The importance of effective and efficient records and information management for proper justice delivery cannot be overemphasized.

Case management and all associated necessities including handling and storage of exhibits, case tracking, bail processing, witnesses, and logistics must be taken very seriously as they can have significant impact on proper justice delivery. Log-book, capable of tracking cases with a purpose to minimize delays, should be high on the reform agenda.

Logistic constrains, modernization, integrity issues, independence, and service delivery. From the findings, it was highlighted that the Office is plagued with logistics constraints, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) issues. Accursed spend far more time in detentions because file got missing in the process. Judges are to physically record proceedings of trials and court sessions. These are all issues acting as challenges for the Office in dispensing justice. According to findings, these are but some of the reasons why it could be said that justice seems to be delayed. It is from this backdrop that this research is recommending adequate resources for the Office.

From findings, it came out clear that the Office contributes to the Consolidated Fund through fines and other payments. A system could be worked out to enable the Judiciary withhold some of these funds collected as in the case the Anti-Corruption Commission; so as to make this sector including the Office of the Chief Justice as financially independent as possible. Equally important, responsibility must be given to the Office for the proper use and subsequent accountability of resources.

To Parliament

From the study, it is clear that throughout the eras of Chief Justices at the end of the conflict in 2002; tenures were riddled and punctuated with either some form of influence either political or otherwise. In lieu of this, it is recommended that a review be made to the Constitution with the aim of creating a firewall from all forms of influence either political or other. This will enable justice to be blind to offices, political parties and personalities in society.

To the Office of the Chief Justice

Structures & Functions: From the study, it was clear that the Chief Justice and judges of the Supreme Court, highlighted weak structures as a factor of bottlenecks and challenges faced by the Office of the Chief Justice and the judiciary by extension. It is from this backdrop that it is recommended an urgent review its staffing structure and function. This is to maximize labour effectiveness and efficiency and minimize or eliminate human resource wastage. There is therefore an urgent need for Personnel Audit; and such recommendation(s) from such audit can then be used as blue-print for structural reformation contracted to private-independent Management firm.

Decentralization: The Judiciary needs to be decentralized. Wherein the authority of the Chief Justice is decentralized there will a feel of bringing justice and equality at the door- step of the people of the country. This will allow provinces, districts and towns to access justice especially in a post-conflict country as Sierra Leone. Accessing justice and equality reduces tension and the possibility of a national civil war. Easy access to justice services would improve democratic credentials of a nation and will also have a great boost for business and commerce all around the country and not just Freetown the capital.

Service Charter: The Office of the Chief Justice should develop a service charter that will be widely publicized and that will educate the public on the institution processes and service fees at every strata or level of engagement. Generally, educating the public on matters that are mostly misconstrued will help increase and reinforce accountability and to an extent curb corruption of the judiciary as an institution.

Law Report: one way in which the Office can improve it function in dispensing justice is by the production of Law Report. This should be a specialized department attached to the Office in the annual production of this all-important document. This will not only aid research, students of law and lecturers but all magistrates and judges who would use it in aiding them to hand-down adequate rulings and equaling keeping with the principle of stare decisi.

Civil Societies/Public/The Office

Public Education: There is an urgent and great need to educate the public about the functions and role of the Office and the Judiciary by extension. Since the end of the war, the credibility of the Office and the Judiciary by extension had being battered with claims and accusation of corruption and inefficiencies. This is a need to improve the image of the Office and the judiciary at large. The need for public education in this respect cannot be over-emphasized. This will help:

Restore public trust: if the public is to use the facilities of this Office, then there must be public trust for the Office. The public must reply and believe that the Office can that properly and efficiently dispense. Lose of trust in the function of the Office increases social vile such a violence, bribery and corruption.

“Bringing the Office closer to the people” public education also would tend to not only show-case the work and function of the Office, but will also seem to be bringing the people closer to the Office. When the public is not au fair with the work and function of the Office, a perceived gap-of-distance is developed. But when the public knows about the function and work of the Office and the Judiciary at large, then there is interest and further recommendation(s) can even be provided by the public for better service and interaction.

Stimulate economic growth: this point is strongly connected to trust above. When there is public trust in the services of the Office and the judiciary at large in dispensing justice; it also has a revolving effect on economic growth. The simple reason being that investor’s confidence in the country is boosted. This confidence is translated into direct foreign investment for the country, which will subsequently result into economic activities such as job creation, improved Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and will inspire young people to make a career in the judiciary.

 

5.3  CONCLUSION

 

The constitutional mandate of the Office of the Chief Justice as per section 120:1 on the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone, could be reviewed considering the historical background of the country and the factors which resulted to the rebel war in 1991.

Though section 120: 3 guarantees non-interference into the work and dealings of the judiciary; by extension the Office of the Chief Justice, yet elements of interference in the operations of the judiciary from other wings of government could be realized with regards the allocation of cases to magistrates and judges and the ruling of these said cases by magistrates and judges.

Sections 120, 135 and 137 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone do give some form of protection to the Office of the Chief Justice and the Judiciary as a whole especially from political influence and manipulations on paper. In actual practice it was noticed that there is a complete inverse in reality.

Furthermore, that though serious reforms had taken place over the years, most of these reforms were done during the tenure of the Honorable Chief Justice Charm (January 2016 to December 2018); in which the Office of the Chief Justice enjoyed the greatest financial support since the end of the war.

The role and functions of the Office of the Chief Justice is pivotal in promoting justice and equality in the society and in maintaining the balance between the various wings and arms of government.

Moreover, the study found out that the Office of the Chief Justice is grossly under-resourced and under-funded comparatively to other arms of government.

From the findings as listed, it can be concluded that the Office of the Chief Justice in post- conflict Sierra Leone had and continued to be plagued and punctuated with undue political influence that has grossly undermined its ability to dispense justice.

 

ANNEX 1

 

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE WITH THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF SIERRA LEONE

A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN DISPENSING

JUSTICE IN POST-WAR SIERRA LEONE, could not be achieved until the current Chief Justice is interviewed. His views would prove invaluable and give credence to data collected. Secondly he would also help to give clarifications on myths and misconceptions on his office.

QUESTIONS

1. How would you describe your mandate and role within the context of dispensing justice in a developing and post-war country has Sierra Leone?

2.      How would you describe your appointment process in the context of change in the Executive wing of governance and the resignation of your predecessor?

3. Describe the judicial landscape of the country

4.      What are your plans in improving the access and dispensation of justice in Sierra Leone?

5. Highlight your challenges, and how do you plan to combat these challenges?

6.      Define undue political influence on the office of the Chief Justice.

7. Do you feel under-funded?

8.      Under your tenure, has your office been subjected to undue political influence from the other arms of government?

9. Section 137 of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone guaranties your tenure of office; do you feel insured within the context that you are being appointed be the President of the Republic?

10.  Do you agree with the truth & Reconciliation Commission Report that the failings of the judiciary, by extension your office contributed to the war? By allowing your office to be a tool to punish political opponents.

11. What have you done or what are you correctly doing to avert these failings of the judiciary?

 

ANNEX II

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE WITH HEADS OF CIVIL SOCIETIES ENGAGED IN JUSTICE

This interview is meant for the head of the under-mentioned institutions. These are the final recipients of justice from the courts as administered by the Chief Justice. These are the lobbyists for the improvement of justice in Sierra Leone. Their input will make a qualified judgment of the Office being studied. These would include the following:

• Initiative for Democracy & Rule of Law
• Centre for Accountability & Rule of Law (CARL)
• Campaign for Good Governance (CGG)
• Civil Advocacy Network
• Open Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA)

 

QUESTIONS

1. Describe the state of the judiciary in post-war Sierra Leone
2. Can you highlight the role or mandate of the Chief Justice as per the 1991 Constitution?
3. What do you think are the possible challenge(s) faced by the Office of the Chief Justice?
4. Do you believe that the judiciary appropriately funded?
5. How could these challenge(s) be mitigated?
6. Do you sense undue political influence on the office of the Chief Justice?
7. Can you give examples?
8. Do you agree with the Constitution that the Chief Justice should be appointed by the President?
9. Do you sense that Chief Justice is guaranty tenure of office by the Executive wing of Government?
10. If you are recommend modification to the constitutional mandate/make-up of the Office of the Chief Justice; which area will be of interest to you?