National COVID-19 Emergency Response Centre (NACOVERC) runs the risk of being dragged to court for one of its rules in the fight against Corona Virus Disease contained in a press release of 17th June, 2021. The rule bans those without proof of vaccination from accessing public buildings.
“With effect from Tuesday 22nd June, 2021, government ministries, departments and agencies will be accessed only by employees and members of the public with proof of at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination,”
This rule is widely seen as tyrannical and oppressive on the part of NACOVERC especially when the country is no longer under a state of emergency. The rule also runs contrary to a fundamental provision in the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone which upholds the right to freedom of movement.
The constitution says in section 18 that every citizen of Sierra Leone has right to move freely and reside any part of Sierra Leone without hindrance. NACOVERC’s rule however directly and unjustifiably undermines citizens’right to freedom of movement.
Consequently, Christian Lawyers popularly known as Legal Link has issued an ultimatum to NACOVERC that either it withdraws the oppressive rule or face legal action.
A document seen by this press indicates that the agency’s Executive Director, Rashid Dumbuya urges NACOVERC to cancel the new rule. “Legal Link calls on government and Sierra Leone Commercial Bank to recall their public notices restricting access to public buildings and business places without proof of COVID-19. If the above is not adhered to, Legal Link will be left with no option but to institute legal actions both within and outside of the jurisdiction of Sierra Leone for violation of the fundamental rights of citizens,” Counsel Dumbuya urged.
In its call to nullify the rules, Legal Link presented several arguments to support its position. It argues that Sierra Leone’s state of emergency has expired, and there has been no renewal of same.
Sierra Leone’s state of emergency came to an end in March this year, and parliament has made no attempt to renew it. Since no state of emergency exists, it is an ultravires for NACOVERC to restrain the movement of Sierra Leoneans for merely refusing to take COVID-19 vaccines. Legal Link also argued that no precedent exists especially in the US and the UK, two most liberal democratic nations hardest hit by the pandemic.
The question posed by Legal Link is that if countries that have recorded one of the highest COVID-19 death toll in the world still respect the right to movement, why not Sierra Leone whose death rate has not reached 300.
World Health Organisation, the argument goes, has never supported compulsory vaccinations.
In most countries where vaccination campaigns have been carried out, patients’ free and informed consent is sought.
“Their COVID-19 health guidelines have always referenced the need to secure patient’s reasonable consent or that of his guardian if such consent cannot be practically obtained from the patient before vaccination is administered,” Counsel Dumbuya emphasised.
According to Legal Link, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to which Sierra Leone is a party places responsibilities on businesses to respect human rights.
It is the therefore Legal Link’s view that Sierra Leone Commercial Bank (SLCB)’s action of restraining unvaccinated staff and customers entry to its facilities constitutes a major violation of human rights.
SLCB might want to take credit for supporting NACOVERC in its anti-COVID-19 campaign, but public opinion holds that an illegal activity should not be supported.
It is also strongly argued that mandatory vaccination by the state creates the platform for the violation of the health rights of citizens.
It says the state bears obligation under international human rights law to respect the rights of its citizens.
Put in simple terms, the state must not interfere with enjoyment of citizens’ rights.
“Getting the consent of citizens before administering COVID-19 vaccine shows respect for their fundamental rights,” the document also reads.
Issuing bogus threats, Legal Link noted, to limit people’s movement into public buildings and banks for merely refusing to be vaccinated shows “outright disrespect” for their right to make informed decisions.
Invoking the exception under section 18 of the 1991 Constitution regarding the right to freedom of movement as a shield may be untenable outside of a State of Public Health Emergency or parliamentary approval.
The document notes that while it is true that freedom of movement recognised by section 18 of the 1991 Constitution can be limited under the same section on the grounds of public health, it is vital to hastily pinpoint that “there is an exception to the exception.”
It reads: “…thereof is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.”
Legal further argues that for one to rely on the exception under section 18 as a defence that the thing done must be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.
It is Legal Link’s opinion as well those from the majority of the public backed up by international best practices, forcing COVID-19 vaccines on people against their consent is an act that is “unreasonable” and “Unjustifiable” in a democratic society.
The Public Health Ordinance, 1960, Counsel Dumbuya argued, allows for restrictions of movement of persons into an “infected area.”
Banks and government buildings have not been declared as infected areas.
Other similar arguments on seeking consent of the patients were also put forward by Legal Link.
NACOVERC’s Communication Pillar Lead, Harold Thomas could not be reached for comment.
However, in most of his media interviews, Thomas assured Sierra Leoneans that NACOVERC would reconsider the ‘rule’ for its legality.