New Direction Government campaigned on a platform of fighting corruption without fear or favour. It promised that there will be no sacred cow in its resolve to weed corruption from Sierra Leone. It also vowed to act on any information or report from any credible institution or individual in its fierce but fair fight against corruption.
The Fierce but Fair fight has been the mantra of Ben Kaifala’s Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC).
The ACC Chief, at several press briefings, had told journalists that the days during which audit reports were treated as mere opinions are far gone. He promised that his agency would act on any audit report that presents strong evidence of corruption.
A US-based media agency, Africanist Press publications have pointed out major incidents of corruption that have warranted ACC investigations especially Office of the First Lady.
Now, strong claims have been made by Africanist Press that the Chief Minister’s hand has been allegedly caught in the loot of public money.
The publications showed how the Chief Minister squandered state financial resources in media consultancies and payments to public relations firms in the United States and the United Kingdom.
‘Beyond Words Studio,’ a notable PR firm received a fair share of the Chief Minister’s alleged loot.
In establishing a clear case of corruption, Africanist Press cited receipt numbers of illegal withdrawals done by the Chief Minister.
The publications also indicated clearly that the Chief Minister’s withdrawals are illegal, and the purpose for which the money was withdrawn and expended is also illegal.
It is illegal for one to use state money to carve good image outside Sierra Leone of a ruling party that does not resonate with the country’s development aspirations. The money must come from party funds and donations for the window dressing campaign.
The illegal Withdrawal and disposal of state money on a wrong purpose may not save one from the provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering law. A cursory look at the law and attempt to fit in Chief Minister’s actions into it, one would conclude that the Chief Minister is not only a candidate for the ACC but also for the Criminal Investigations Department.
The world community of nations has unanimously resolved to fight corruption in the form of money laundering, and no one would be spared regardless of status. Despite strong evidence gathered by Africanist Press, the Chief Minister is yet to face ACC either for an interview or full-fledge investigation.
This is not the first time Chief Minister has sailed through corruption allegations. Few Months back, he was alleged to have received US$1.5M from the suspended Iron Ore miner, SL Mining.
The journalist, Sallieu Tejan Jalloh who attempted to investigate the matter was arrested and detained on orders of the suspected Chief Minister. The journalist spent two days in police detention. At the time of Jalloh’s incarceration, Part-Five of the Public Order Act, 1965 was still in force and its provisions criminalise defamation.
He was brought under that law although the matter died on its way to court. Jalloh’s arrest was nakedly unlawful as no journalist should be subjected to arrest for merely cross-checking or fact-checking an allegation.
The journalist was trying to dispense an obligation placed on him by the provisions of the Media Code of Practice, 2007. The Code recognises and guarantees to everybody the right of reply. Office of Chief Minister is part of the Office of President, and any corruption in the Office of Chief Minister also means corruption in the Office of the President.
Office of the President, quite recently, came under the spotlight for corruption from a consortium of civil society organisations: Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law, Restless Development and Christian Aid.
Based on perception surveys, the consortium led by CARL directly accused Office of the President of masterminding corruption on a grand scale. Another credible international agency, Institute of Governance Reform also spoke about the prevalence of corruption in the Office of the President.
Both reports tagged the President’s office as the third most corrupt institution in Sierra Leone. At the time the reports came out, State House and its component offices were mute. A stillbirth defence was put up by the Minister of Information, Mohamed Rado Swarray who said Office of the President does not mean only State House, but other offices as well. The weakness of the minister’s defence lies in his failure to respond to issues raised by the report. Sparing Chief Minister for criminal investigations portrays him as a man above the law.
The move renders the notion of supremacy of the law a mere farce. The glorious theory of Rule of Law by Professor AV Diecy with key underpinning of supremacy of the law is relegated to mere words on a page.
The Chief Minister’s action also lends credence to the Aristotlean philosophy which says the laws of states are like cobwebs: ‘Weaker animals are trapped while stronger animals break through.’
The law being neutral in its content must also be made neutral in its effect. Sierra Leone’s anti-corruption law makes provision for setting aside any public officials against whom tangible corruption allegation is made.
The provision has been made to bear weight on a number of public officials who previously faced corruption investigations.
Former Minister of Education, now Minister of Labour, Alpha Timbo and other officials of the Ministry of Education were set aside when allegations of misappropriating a number of bags of rice were made against them. The said officials faced rigorous ACC investigation during their suspension. They were brought back to their posts only after no case was found against them.
Almost invariably, Master and Registrar of the High Court and other judicial officials were also suspended during ACC investigations.
The Master and Registrar took back his seat after he was cleared of the allegations. Those who have been convicted have either paid fines or are languishing behind bars.
A resident in the southern town of Bo who solicited an advantage of Le100, 000 (Hundred Thousand Leones) have been convicted.
The convict is now between the devil and deep blue sea. He is asked to pay a fine of Le50, 000, 000 (Fifty Million Leones) or go down for five years.
An Accountant at the Ministry of Information and Communication was also told to stay at home for an independent investigation after he was accused of siphoning Millions of Leones meant for the sensitisation campaigns the defunct commissions of inquiry.
Another famous personality, Isha Johansen’s office was put under lock and key after she was accused of squandering money meant for an MRI test for Sierra Leone footballers.
Mrs Johansen was President of Sierra Leone Football Association (SLFA), but was barred from entering her office until corruption trials were concluded. Despite a ban slammed on Sierra Leone by the world football governing body, Federation International Football Association for government’s interference into SLFA activities, government pressed ahead with their investigations.
Government’s argument has always argued that SLFA is a public body and that any money received from any country or organisation on behalf of the agency is public money. Government also argued that Sierra Leone is a sovereign state meaning that it is free from any external control or direction of any agency or authority.
It is therefore free to fight corruption, and its effort is not open to restriction by any organisation.
She was never convicted of any of the allegations made against him. She went back to her office after she was set free by a High Court in Freetown.
If all these officers are set aside for corruption allegations, why the Chief Minister is allowed to serve in his office?
If Office of the First Lady is investigated for Corruption allegations made by Africanist Press, why Chief Minister whose allegations are found in the same medium go free?