GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE Chambers of the Attorney General

GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE

Chambers of the Attorney General

Guma Building, Lamina Sankoh Street, Freetown

L/CS/1  

FROM: The Attorney General and Minister of Justice

TO:                         The Secretary to the Cabinet and Head of the Civil Service

REPORT OF THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE ON THE AUDITOR

GENERAL’S REPORT ON THE MANAGEMENT OF THE EBOLA FUNDS

I refer to a memorandum dated 4th August 2015 reference CSF/274 on the above mentioned subject matter from the Public Account Committee (the Committee) forwarding to the Office of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice request for legal opinion and advice on the implementation of the Committee’s recommendations.

Having read the above report I will draw your attention to the under-mentioned provisions for your attention, to wit:

Section 93 (1) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone 1991 (Act No. 6) of 1991 provides as follows:

“At the beginning of each session of parliament but in any later than twenty-one days thereafter, there shall be appointed from among its members the following Standing Committees, that is to say:-

(a)          The Legislative Committee;

(b)          The Finance Committee;

(c)           The Committee on Appointment and Public Service

(d)          The Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation Committee;

(e)          The Public Account Committee;

(f)           The Committee of Privileges;

(g)          The Standing Orders Committee;

(h)          Such other Committees of Parliament as the rules of procedure of Parliament shall provide

(2)          In addition to the Committees referred to in subsection (1) as above, Parliament shall appoint other committees which               shall perform the functions specified in section 93 subsection (3) below.

(3)          It shall be the duty of any such Committee as is referred to in subsection

(2)          to investigate or inquire into the activities or administration of   such Ministries or department as may be assigned to                  it, and such investigation or inquiry may extend to proposal for legislation.

(4)          Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) and (2),   Parliament may at any time appoint any other           Committee to investigate any matter of public importance.

(5)          The composition of each of the Committee appointed under subsections (a), (2) and (4) shall, as much as possible, reflect the strength of the political parties and independent members of    Parliament.

(6)          For the purpose of effectively performing its functions, each of  the Committee shall have all such powers, rights and privileges as are vested in the High Court at a trial in respect of –

(a)          Enforcing the attendance of witness and examining them on oath, affirmation or otherwise;

(b)          Compelling the production of documents; and

(c)           The issue of a commission or request to examine witnesses abroad.

The above mentioned constitutional reference is clearly self-explanatory. In other words, Parliament acted within the framework and ambits of the powers accorded to it under the said Constitutional provision in conducting investigations in accordance with section 93 of the Constitution. In the exercise of the said powers, Parliament shall have powers and privileges that are vested in the High Court of Judicature in so far as it relate to;

a)            Enforcing the attendance of witnesses for the purpose of  examining them on either oath, affirmation or otherwise and,

b)            To compel the production of documents to assist Parliament in the exercise of it investigative powers accorded to it under the provisions of the Constitution. And

c)            Finally to consider the issue of a commission or request to examine witnesses abroad.

From the above references, it is clear that the provision as stated, is a condition of “res Ipsa loquitor” provision which means the circumstances speaks for themselves. So far as the provision stands, Parliament in the exercise of it power is guided by reference to the above mentioned provisions and as, it is to be understood that it powers are also limited within the ambit of the provision in section 93 of the Constitution. Suffice it to say that Parliament in the conduct of its investigation can only make recommendations but cannot impose punitive measures as in the instance case. The reason is simple. Those that were subject to the investigation of Parliament were not accorded the opportunity to be represented by Counsel to protect them on certain critical questions on issues that may be put to them and or otherwise nor did they have the requisite competence of trained counsel to answer the questions that were put to them. It is therefore interesting to note that despite these provisions, those who were subjected to the investigation conducted by Parliament were penalized and are presently serving the terms of their penalties even before requesting advice from the Office of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice. Notwithstanding, that the sanction of the punishment as recommended to them were yet to receive the advice and confirmation from the Office of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice to ensure that the provisions of section 93 of the Constitution had been duly complied with.

Let me also hasten to point out that these persons who have been penalized already are also Civil Servants and are subjected to the Civil Service Code that govern the conduct of all Civil Servants in Sierra Leone. Furthermore, there is also in existence a body created by law with powers to discipline all Civil Servants in Sierra Leone. On this note, I hold the view that if Parliament was fully convinced that in the conduct of it investigations if unearthed overwhelming evidence against these officers, the proper thing for it to have done was to recommend the following actions to be taken;

1.            That disciplinary action be taken against these Civil Servants through the Public Service Commission without actually specifying any penal measures; or

2.            That based on the evidence so far revealed, that these officers be further investigated with a new of proffering charges against them by the office of the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice or better still be subjected to a commission of enquiry pursuant to  Chapter IX Section 147 to section 150 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone 1991.

Having stated the above, it is clear that while the advice from the Office of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice was yet to be issued to ensure compliance with the provisions of section 93 of the Constitution, these officers have already been penalized by their respective line Ministries purportedly implementing the recommendations of Parliament prematurely without any reference to the Office of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice who is the Constitutional legal adviser to the Government in breach of the provisions of Section 64 of the Constitution, as such the punishment being implemented against these officers is premature, unprecedented and amounts of subjecting them to double jeopardy.

In the circumstances, and in view of their present predicaments, I recommend that their circumstances and present status be reviewed in order to avoid undue harshness and the prospect of the recommendation as meted out to their officers being quashed on a Certiorari application to a court of competent jurisdiction.

Deputy Minister of Justice

For Attorney General & Minister of Justice

Ministry of Justice

Law Officer’s Department

Guma Building