A situation where an incumbent loses an election and refuses to concede defeat is one that creates a recipe for an all-out conflict that may lead to sinister consequences. In such a controversial political situation, genocides and revolutions could not be ruled out as the oppressed and those whose votes have been stolen cannot be appeased in any shape or form.
To prevent conflict or the outbreak of genocide, the West African Network for the Promotion of the Rule of Law is calling on ECOWAS (Economic Community Of West African States) to intervene into Sierra Leone to save the country from a relapse into another conflict which may have devastating effect.
Established in 1975 by West African states, the sub-regional bloc has a mandate to facilitate trade and commerce and to maintain peace and security within the sub-region.
The bloc has been meeting this obligation in several West African countries where coups have taken places including countries where leaders have refused to step aside after losing an election.
Liberia, Sierra Leone and The Gambia are bright examples of West African countries where ECOWAS has reversed coups and restored democratic order. The sub-regional bloc ended the war in Liberia between 1989 and 1991 and also reversed the 1997 coup by the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) in Sierra Leone.
ECOWAS also threatened military action against ex-Gambian President, Yayah Jammeh who refused to hand over power after he lost the 2016 election to President Adama Barrow.
A press from the West African Network seeks to mobilise international action against the Bio regime which they see as illegal.
The press statement says that “the government of Maada Bio has become increasingly authoritarian and oppressive, and has been accused of committing acts of massive human rights violations against his own people. In light of this, it is imperative that the international community intervene in Sierra Leone to save democracy and prevent the commission of genocide.”
The document in question also highlighted several legal, political and moral reasons for intervening into Sierra Leone. On a legal basis, the right campaigners made it clear that the Charter of the United Nations allows for the use of force in cases of self-defence or to maintain international peace and security.
Intervening in Sierra Leone, the argument goes on, would be justified under the principle of the responsibility to protect, a doctrine adopted by the United Nations in 2005. It says “member states have an obligation to protect populations from genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.”
As such, intervening in Sierra Leone would be an appropriate move under the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ principle. ECOWAS Protocol on Democratic Governance also places emphasis on the neutrality of state institutions in any electoral period, and it notes that “the ECOWAS Protocol on Democratic Governance contains provisions on elections, the neutrality of the judiciary and the impartiality of the security forces.”
West African Network believes that the sub-regional legal instrument is in conformity with the UN legal instruments relating to the promotion of democracy, rule of law and human rights.
On the political front, according to the right campaigners, the intervention is also legal as it would greatly benefit the international community and send a clear message to other authoritarian regimes that the international community will not tolerate human rights abuses and will take action to protect vulnerable populations.
It would also demonstrate the commitment of the international community to the principles of democracy, justice and human rights. Moral considerations also dictate that the international community should intervene for the sake of the people of Sierra Leone who have suffered immensely and in desperate need of help.
It is therefore the moral responsibility of the international community to protect vulnerable groups from human rights abuses and to help restore democracy and stability in Sierra Leone.
The right campaigners also accused the Bio regime as one engaged in selective ethnic killings and the international community must take immediate action in order to ensure the safety and well-being of the people of Sierra Leone.
Looking back at history, the atrocities of civil unrest in Sierra Leone have been escalating for years with no end in sight.
Sierra Leone, the rights advocates say, has been politically unstable since 1991 when a civil war began between the government and the rebel forces. The internecine war claimed over 200, 000 (two hundred thousand) and displaced over 1, 000, 000 (one million) Sierra Leoneans.
It also brought untold suffering to the people with the have-nots being the hardest-hit, and Bio who has been at the helm of affairs was expected to protect this country from the slide into another devastating war.
One year after the war broke out in March 1991, Bio and other young military officers toppled the government of Joseph Saidu Momoh owing to widespread corruption, bad governance and grave human rights abuses.
President Bio played a key role in the coup d’etat although he initially held an insignificant position.
He however came to the political limelight when he replaced Solomon Musa as Vice Chairman of the National Provisional Ruling Council which made him second-in-command of the state of Sierra Leone.
Bio became dominant and primos interpares (First among equals) in the NPRC regime, in 1996, when he staged a palace coup against his boss, Captain Valentine Strasser, a man accused of attempting to derail democracy in Sierra Leone.
He ruled briefly and transferred power to civilian authorities in the same year thus earning the good reputation of ‘Father of Democracy.’
It is usually a way of life of people of the United States and Europe to reward those who fight for democracy, and Bio’s struggles never went in vain.
He resurfaced on the political landscape in 2012 after he was elected flag-bearer and presidential candidate of the ruling Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP), but lost the presidential election when he ran with former President Ernest Bai Koroma, a politically heavy weight at that time.
His defeat did not dampen his zeal as he went back to London where he mobilised strong political support to deal with another devastating blow to the APC as he won the elections in 2018.
Bio came to power at a time the people’s expectations were high especially rebuilding an Ebola-ravaged economy, providing food, controlling inflation, lowering the exchange rate, cut down budget deficits, strengthening the private sector, creating jobs for the youth both able and disabled and improving the unfavourable terms of trade which Sierra Leone have been grappling with for years.
The most pressing demand also was strengthening peace and national cohesion for the socio-economic prosperity of Sierra Leone. In the early days of his administration, Bio seemed to have been moving towards the path of economic recovery seen in the creation of a single treasury account, but idealism was soon betrayed by corruption, lies and deception.
Bio’s rule in the past five years, according to right campaigners is one of divisiveness, selective justice, terror tactics, creation of a police state, one-partyism and tight regulation of all aspects of life to worsen poverty and suffering.
Since Sierra Leone is a democracy, the oppressed people put up with the oppressive regime which they hope to kick out of power through the ballot box in June 24, 2023, but the Chief Electoral Commissioner, Mohamed Konneh subverted the people’s will in collusion with President Bio.
Now, the people have made up their minds to get Bio out of the political scene as he has failed the people of Sierra Leone in terms of prudent management of the economy and other sensitive sectors. Although Bio has been isolated by the rest of the international community, he still insists on leading although he did not win the election, and cares less about drawing daggers.
The people wanted to get him out but they vary by what means to be employed. Others say the peaceful way is better off while others see an ECOWAS military strike as the best option.
The West African Network supports a foreign military intervention equal in scale as the one in March, 1998.