By Allieu Sahid Tunkara – Human Rights Journalis (+232 77306110)
The current Commissions of Inquiry, ongoing at the former Special Court for Sierra Leone facilities, presided over by Judges from Nigeria, Ghana and Sierra Leone, is anchored on the peace and security of Sierra Leone. These Commissions are for democratic accountability inherent in contemporary societies to which Sierra Leone is no exception.
It has become part of the political culture of countries that when ruling parties ride into the sunset, the succeeding party sets up Commissions of Inquiry to look into the activities of its predecessor, with a particular focus on the management of public funds, put in common terms the ‘People’s money.’
Sierra Leone has witnessed a lot of Commissions of Inquiry since independence and they have investigated wide ranging issues of governance to wit: the Dove Edwin Commission of Inquiry, the Juxon Smith Commission of Inquiry, the National Provisional Ruling Council Commission of Inquiry in 1992 and the Justice Semega Janneh Commission of Inquiry, among others.
Each had a specific mandate to sanitize the political terrain of Sierra Leone. Currently, Sierra Leone is host to the Justice Biobele Georgewill Commission of Inquiry, which is charged with the responsibility of investigating the activities of past government officials, who served the country between 2007 and 2018, with an emphasis on the management of government assets, observance of governance processes and procedures and, most importantly, the management of tax payers’ money.
The Biobele Commission of Inquiry’s setting is predicated on the country’s ‘bad economy’ inherited by the current government. This state of affairs is dubbed as the worst since independence, owing to the huge debt burden, both domestic and foreign.
The strides to set up the three Commissions of Inquiry indicate that President Bio is duly exercising powers conferred on him by section 147 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone Act No. 6 of 1991. Thus, the three Commissions of Inquiry currently hearing testimonies from witnesses called by the state and receiving exhibits both from the defence and the state is a product of the lengthiest and most painstaking debate in Sierra Leone’s recent past.
PURSUANCE OF JUSTICE VS MAINTENANCE OF STATE SECURITY
The two concepts of justice and security are interwoven, almost inseparable as the former depends on the latter. The inseparability of the two has been echoed and re-echoed in the highest academic circles and in the finest criminal jurisprudence known to the civilized world. Renowned personalities have argued that it is necessary sometimes to set justice aside for the interest of peace and security; arguing that security is the fulcrum around which the stability and survival of the state revolves, lending credence to the philosophy of statism.
However, this generation has come to realize that there can be no peace and security without justice. It is therefore the latter paradigm that has taken root in Sierra Leone, thus having the Biobele Commission of Inquiry, which has created an uneasy situation between the government and the main opposition.
The latter has been quite critical of the COI since its formative period. This was characterized by one of the most acrimonious debates in the well of Parliament ever recorded in Sierra Leone’s history. The opposition has always argued that the COI lacks rules to regulate the practice and procedure of all Commissions of Inquiry, no definite timeframe as to when the Commission should commence and end its proceedings, ‘selective justice’ and ‘protectionism,’ typographical errors riddled in the Instruments that set up the COIs and political witch hunting portraying the Commissions a ‘kangaroo-styled’ Commission of Inquiry.
One of the opposition debaters, in Parliament, Daniel Koroma, conceptualised political witch hunting as a subtle and organized attempt to silence the opposition by the ruling party hiding behind the cloak of protecting the public interest. He argued that the Instruments adopted to set up the Commissions of Inquiry are in a direct conflict with section 150 0f the country’s Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. He argued that any law which is inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution shall to the extent of the inconsistency be null and void and of no effect.
In spite of the tough argument presented by Koroma, the main opposition failed to secure the two-third majority votes needed to nullify the three Constitutional Instruments. The Instruments therefore became law and a Certificate for the setting up of the Commissions of Inquiry was issued by the Speaker of Parliament, Dr Abass Bundu, to the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Dr Priscilia Scwhartz.
It is against this backdrop that the opposition vows not to cooperate with the COI, stating that they will not submit their officers to “unconstitutionality.” The opposition spokesman, Cornelius Diveaux, accused the government of keeping “sacred cows” and pressing to pursue justice.
The main opposition spokesperson presents a strong case that former ministers, who served the past government, and Permanent Secretaries, who are vote controllers, should be relieved of their duties to face the COI. If the government, Deveaux says, fails in this responsibility, it would appear that the Commission is a target to North-Westerners, courtesy of the main opposition press release that bolsters the argument of the opposition mouthpiece.
To further demonstrate their stance of non-cooperation with the COI, a press briefing was held at the main opposition party headquarters at Old Railway Line in Freetown to reiterate their position towards the Commission. The holding of the press briefing coincided with the launching of the Commissions of Inquiry by President Bio on the 29th January, 2019.
On the commencement of the hearings, the lead defence counsels for one of the persons of interest, Ady Macauley, further strengthened the opposition’s stance by challenging the jurisdiction of the Commission presided over Justice Biobele Georgewill, citing Instrument No. 64 of 2018, which, he said, is inconsistent with section 150.
The Commission, according to him, should stay proceedings and refer the question of its legality to the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone, which possesses the power to determine the extent of the inconsistency.
Ady’s application was objected to by lead counsel for the state, Oladipo Robin Mason, who argued that section 150 is not a condition precedent and the COI must have been in existence before the said section could be applied. Mason describes the argument of the defence counsel as “untenable.”
Having heard the argument of counsels from both sides, the question of legality of the Commission was laid to rest by the learned Judge, Justice Biobele Gergewill, who ruled that the Commission is both legal and valid.
Apart from these legal exchanges, the statement, which constituted the last straw that would have broken the camel’s back, “Anyone invited by the Commission must fully comply or face the full force of the law.” The statement has direct bearing on the security of the state, especially when the opposition promised to put up the strongest resistance should they be compelled to appear before the COI.
FAIRNESS AND TRANSPARENCY WEAKEN THE PILLARS OF CONFLICT
When this battle line was drawn life came to a standstill, as parents became apprehensive of sending their children to school. Mass migration becomes the order of the day as people gravitate to their homes, investors and potential investors became jittery of the business climate and panic strikes the state. All these fears were allayed by fairness and transparency exhibited by Justice Biobele Georgewill, who exercises no power of compellability though the Commissions enjoy the status of the High Court.
During the proceedings, equal platform is created for both the state and defence counsels, thereby generating hope of a fair and just conclusion of the Commission, which would continue the project of peace building in Sierra Leone.
The words of former UN Secretary-General, Boutrous Boutrous Ghali, deserve a particular mention that: security is about weakening the pillars of conflict and strengthening the pillars of peace.