By Allieu Sahid Tunkaran
“The judicial power of Sierra Leone shall belong to the judiciary of which the chief justice shall be the head.”
The above legal clause entrenched in section 40 of the 1991 constitution is a fundamental provision that confers judicial power solely on the judiciary of Sierra Leone. Judicial power refers to the power to interpret laws and punish offenders, as well as arbitrating disputes among individuals thereby upholding human rights and justice in society.
In the Sierra Leone legal context, the judiciary consists of Magistrates’courts, high courts,courts of appeal and Supreme Court which is the highest and final court of appeal for and within Sierra Leone.
The three courts excluding the magistrates’ courts constitute courts of record and superior courts of judicature.
To ensure that judicial officers perform their functions without fear or favour, another clause is found in sub section-3 of the same section of the constitution. The said section grants complete autonomy on the judiciary in the dispensation of their scared functions. It reads: “In the exercise of its judicial functions, the judiciary shall be subject to only this constitution or any other law and shall not be subject to the control or direction of any other person or authority.”
In spite of the existence of these clauses in the country’s supreme law, the judiciary still grapples with one of the greatest challenges-judicial independence.It is no gainsaying that Sierra Leone’s judiciary is relegating to a ‘puppet judiciary’ that is constantly manipulated by successive governments.
The constant political manipulation of the judiciary lies in some conspicuous instances that are worth mentioning in this article. These instances depict the judiciary as one that mesmerizes any political order that exists at a particular time.
In the run-up to the 2007 presidential elections, founder and leader of the People’s Movement for Democratic Change, Charles Francis Margai filed a petition to the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone against former Vice President, Solomon Ekuma Berewa.The order was for the court to determine the validity of Berewa’s candidacy as a sitting Vice President of the country at the time.
The petition posed a legal question to the supreme court as to whether a sitting Vice President was qualified to contest for a party flag-bearership.The petition of the petitioner was dismissed as the court was of the opinion that it was based on an erroneous understanding of the constitution.
Similarly, in 2012, the petition filed by the current President, Julius Maada Bio against the former President, Ernest Bai Koroma over allegations of elections irregularities was thrown out of court citing legal technicalities.
In 2015, the judiciary was also confronted with a challenging, constitutional question following the sacking of the Vice President, Chief Samuel Sam Sumana by former President, Ernest Bai Koroma.
The Supreme Court was tasked with providing an answer to a legal question as to whether the constitutional phrase: ‘Supreme Executive Authority’ found in section 40 includes the power of the presidency to dismiss a Vice President at will other than the conditions provided for by sections 50 and 51 of the same constitution.
The said sections borders on the physical and mental capacity as well as gross misconduct and violation of the constitution.
In all the drama and wrangling in the Supreme Court, the judges upheld the action of the President in removing the Vice President. The verdict disregarded the legal opinion offered by Dr. Abdulai O. Conteh, a sitting Justice of the Appeals Court in the Bahamas and former Attorney-General of Sierra Leone as well as one of the framers of the 1991 constitution.
The legal opinion he offered while the matter was sub-judice was published by Concord Times newspaper outlawing the action of former President Koroma.The verdict today stands as one of the prominent case laws in judicial records.
In a related development, Sierra Leone’s judiciary is again trapped in a dance of destiny as it reneges on one of its basic judicial functions. Following the verdicts which deprived the opposition of ten parliamentary seats, the opposition members filed appeals so that, the verdicts of the two judges could be reviewed by the appeals court. As it stands, the judges are yet to be empanelled to hear the appellants after a lapse of four months being the period provided for by law.
In a press briefing previously held at the Sierra Leone Association of Journalists at Campbell Street in Freetown, The opposition leader, Chernor Maju Bah was quite critical of the judges’ verdicts.
He referred to the verdicts as a complete disregard for the law citing relevant provisions in the Public Elections Act of 2012.The opposition leader told the press that ,the party needed foreign judges to dispense justice in the appeals matter.
Currently, the court of appeal has not sit to listen to the appeals let alone bringing in foreign judges to preside over the mattes
Correspondingly, members of the public have expressed various opinions on the level of honesty and fairness of the judiciary in the discharge of their duties.
A veteran teacher, Ibrahim Bangura, also a reader in paralegal studies said he would no longer approach the Sierra Leone’s judiciary in respect of any matter because according to him he could not get justice. “I took an assault matter to a magistrate court in Freetown at one time.I gave up going to court owing to several adjournments,” Bangura recounted.
Sierra Leone is a democratic order with a presidential system of government albeit its weaknesses. In a democratic dispensation, the judiciary is pivotal to the peace and stability of the state. Again, in a presidential system, the principle of separation of powers is a cardinal one. It must be recognized and respected according to the postulations of the French Political Philosopher, Baron De Montesquieu and other political thinkers of the ages.
The principle pinpoints that, there must be separation of personnel, separation of control and separation of functions among the three arms of government. This time-honoured notion prevents the dominance of one organ of government over the other organs.
In Sierra Leone, the executive arm, by all indications, seems too powerful and dominant to the extent that, the judiciary almost always dances to the prejudicial, capricious and whimsical preferences of the executive officials.
The second fiddle role the judiciary plays to the executive arm may not be unconnected to the latter being sponsored by the former.
It is the head of the executive-the President that appoints the head of the judiciary, pays them, and finances their operations among others. The credo: one cannot bite the finger that feeds them though a cliché is still relevant here. As long as the trend continues, it would be difficult for the judiciary to kick against government’s interest in a particular case.
Thus, it goes without saying that a puppet judiciary in a post-conflict state like Sierra Leone sows the seeds of discord ready to germinate, at any given time, into an all-out conflict.