Chapter 7: Juvenile justice

7 Juvenile justice

 

SIERRA LEONE
A country review of crime and criminal justice, 2008

 

African Human Security Initiative



Monograph No 160, May 2009

 

Introduction


Article 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), to which Sierra Leone is a party, calls on states to recognise the rights of children who are in conflict with the law and for them to be treated in a manner consistent with the child’s sense of dignity and worth. The UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules) of 1985 define a juvenile as being ‘a child or young person who, under the respective legal systems, may be dealt with for an offence in a manner which is different from an adult’.30 A specified age criterion is thus not provided.


Under Sierra Leonean law, the Children and Young Persons Act of 1960, commonly known as Chapter 44, which governs the treatment of juveniles in conflict with the law, generally applies to anyone below the age of 17 years.31 However, this is inconsistent with the age stipulated in the Approved School Order, which stipulates that juvenile offenders deprived of their liberty are normally to be detained until they are 18 years of age.32 There are other significant inconsistencies in the various pieces of legislation that provide definitions of children. For example, Chapter 31 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act of 1960 defines a child as a person below 16 years old. In the Sierra Leone Citizens Act of 1973 a person is deemed to be of full age when s/he has attained the age of 21 years. The Anti-Human Trafficking Act of 2005 defines a child as a person below 18 years. To add to the confusion, section 31 of the Constitution stipulates that the voting age is 18 years.


However, the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC)33 and the CRC34 define a child as being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier. In compliance with international standards, the recent Child Right’s Act of 1989, which is a domestication of the CRC, has declared a child in Sierra Leone as anyone below the age of 18 years.

Constitutional and institutional arrangements for delivering juvenile justice


Sierra Leone has ratified all major international instruments on juvenile justice with the exception of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel and Degrading Human Treatment, which Sierra Leone ratified in 2002, but not the optional protocol. Primarily, there are three main guiding international legal instruments governing the treatment of juveniles. These are the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice,35 the UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty,36 and the UN Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency.37


The CRC is the key instrument under which the three documents exist. Other important documents are the three bills of rights, which include the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR), the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The principles of fundamental human rights in relation to justice contained in these documents have achieved universal acceptance and have been signed by Sierra Leone.


At the national level, laws governing children in Sierra Leone include the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act of 1927, commonly called Cap 31, and the Children and Young Persons Act of 1945, commonly called Cap 44 and found in the laws of 1960. These are followed by other related policies and pieces of legislation that govern children at risk, such as the Protection of Women and Girls Act, Chapter 30 of the laws of 1960, the Education Act of 2004 and the Anti-Human Trafficking Act of 2005. In 2007 the government domesticated the Child Rights Act of 1989, demonstrating its commitment to internationally signed treaties.


In Sierra Leone, issues relating to children in general are dealt with by the Ministry of Social Welfare, Gender and Children’s Affairs (MSWGCA) and the Ministry of Justice, with the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) as the Justice Ministry’s lead development partner.


Certain provisions like the age determination in Cap 44 do not fall in line with modern approaches to juvenile justice in relation to guidelines and policies set out in ‘hard norms’, like the CRC and the ACRWC,38 as well as ‘soft norms’ on children, like the Beijing Rules39, the Riyadh Guidelines40 and the Havana Rules.41 In Sierra Leone, the age of criminal responsibility is 14 years and any person above the age of 14 years is thus clearly deemed fully capable of committing a crime and considered capable and liable for his or her acts.


The trial process of juveniles in conflict with the law, according to both national and international standards, demands certain procedures geared towards ensuring fair and equitable justice, and the respect and dignity of the child, as stipulated in various provisions of the CRC, the ACRWC and the Child Rights Act of 2007. These procedures include, amongst many others, the right to an interpreter in court, the right to legal representation, the right to appeal, the right to have the matter determined without delay and the right to privacy. An assessment is given below of the extent to which Sierra Leone has lived up to both national and international provision in relation to the treatment of children in conflict with the law.


Right to an interpreter in a Juvenile Court


Article 40(2b(vi)) of the CRC provides the right to free assistance of an interpreter if the child cannot understand or speak the language used in court. In Sierra Leone, the official court language is English. However, Krio, the commonly-spoken local language, is used in most cases used during court sessions. Generally, children who come into conflict with the law are street children whose level of understanding of English is very limited. Regardless of the absence of interpreters, offenders are in most cases in a position to clearly understand what is being said by the magistrate and other court personnel.42


Imprisonment of juvenile offenders


Section 24(3), Chapter 44 of the laws of Sierra Leone of 1960 stipulates that ’a young person sentenced to imprisonment shall, so far as circumstances permit, not be allowed to associate with adult prisoners’. The state of human rights in Sierra Leone report 2007 (Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone 2007) revealed that during a visit of the Commission to the Pademba Road Maximum Prison in 2007, it was discovered that juvenile offenders were still being detained with adults, which is in contravention of article 7(b)43 of the ACRWC and Article 10(2b)44 of the ICCPR, as well as national law.


The Permanent Secretary45 of the MSWGCA acknowledged that technically and administratively it was wrong, but the Approved School for the detention of juvenile offenders was in a deplorable condition. Moreover, there were no other detention facilities available country-wide and the offenders could not be sent home since they were serving jail terms. The only alternative was to detain them in the Pademba Road Prison.


On a visit to the Approved School at Wellington in June 2008 it was found that six offenders imprisoned for larceny – one of whom had already been imprisoned for 26 months and the others at least two months – had in June 2008 been transferred from the Pademba Road Prison to the Approved School.46


Section 216 of the Criminal Procedures Act of 1965 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty on anyone committing a crime when below the age of 18 years. This provision is in accordance with the CRC.47 A visit by LAWCLA to the Pademba Road Prison revealed there was a strong likelihood that one of the women found on death row, whose birth certificate was absent, was under 16 years. This was discerned from her appearance and from information obtained from prison officers (Lawyers Centre for Legal Assistance 2005)


Right to legal counsel


The provision of legal aid is enshrined in section 28(5) of the Constitution.48 To date, however, no legislation has been put in place to give effect to this right. Section 14(3)(4) of the ICCPR, to which Sierra Leone acceded in 1966, also requires the provision of legal counsel if the defendant cannot personally provide one.49 In support of the above provision, Article 40(2)(b)(ii)50 of the CRC, which Sierra Leone ratified in 1990, also stipulates the relevance of legal assistance and guidance for juveniles.


Article 17(b 3) of the CRC51 stipulates that ’a guaranteed due process is the right to a legal preparation and representation’. Unfortunately, in practice the situation encountered is to the contrary. Most juveniles who come in conflict with the law are street children with hardly any family members showing up on their behalf. In most cases juveniles provide wrong information or addresses to police and probation officers, who have the responsibility of collecting background information about the juveniles to assist the court proceedings, or to contact the child’s parents or other guardian.


According to the Deputy Registrar of the High Court, legal representation for juveniles is limited and in most cases they are not represented in court. However, the Juvenile Court Clerk indicated that Defence for Children International (DCI), an NGO working on juvenile justice-related issues, sometimes provides lawyers for juveniles if they are informed about the case in time. Sometimes the probation officer from the MSWGCA speaks on behalf of the juvenile.52


Right to a speedy trial


Article 40(2)(b)(iii) of the CRC obligates state parties to ensure that a trial date is determined without delay by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body. Harvey (2000:3) noted that: ‘The Sierra Leone delegation in its session with the CRC committee admitted that one of the gaps in the judicial process is that minors are not always tried as quickly as they should be’. DCI noted that institutional constraints faced by the entire justice system, coupled with lack of care shown by parents or witnesses of offenders to attend court sessions, causes delays.53


In discussions with the duty officer and matron of the Remand Home in Freetown, it was confirmed that the above-mentioned situation existed until May 2007. They advised that originally court sessions were held only on Wednesdays since there was no specific court for juveniles [a situation that still pertains today] and the limited number of magistrates could only squeeze in one session a week.


Furthermore, transporting offenders to court was a major problem as there were no vehicles attached to the home. This resulted in offenders arriving late for hearings and magistrates adjourning the cases of those who arrived late. Because of lack of transportation and for reasons of security, given the limited number of duty officers attached to the home, it was not always possible to take all the juveniles needed for hearings to court simultaneously. This situation in most cases resulted in inmates pelting personnel of the home with stones.


However, since May 2007, the situation had improved slightly. A vehicle had recently been allocated to the MSWGCA by UNICEF on the understanding that it only be used for the transportation of juvenile offenders to court. Although a Land Rover was always made available to the Remand Home, obtaining sufficient fuel had proved to be a major problem. According to the duty officer, the court now also sat for juvenile cases every day. At the time of the interview there was little delay in transporting children to court.


The Permanent Secretary confirmed that the only major concern was the time set for juveniles to attend court sessions. As no specific Juvenile Court had yet been established, court sessions were held in the afternoon. After the trial of adult cases, the same courts were used for juvenile cases, which resulted in the cases of juveniles being heard up to 17:00 daily. Although matters were sometimes adjourned because a magistrate got tired, such occurrences were very low.


Right to privacy


Article 40(2)(b)(vii) of the CRC mandates that a juvenile should have his or her privacy respected at all levels in the proceedings. The Clerk of the Juvenile Court said, however, that at times juvenile cases were heard in the presence of other litigants. The reason for this was that there was no special court assigned to juvenile cases. At the time of this research, the High Court was being used since it was in recess. When it resumed the Juvenile Court would look for a new venue. Court No. 7, which was assigned to juvenile cases in the afternoons, was normally in use till the arrival of juveniles. In some cases, when the accused in an adult case was not present, an available juvenile offender was called to be tried while adults were still present, which is a contravention of international standards.


Right to bail


Although section 15 of Chapter 44 and section 17 of the Constitution provide for bail under certain conditions, it is not granted. In cases of homicide and treason, bail is not allowed. The Deputy Master Registrar of the Law Courts indicated that bail was sometimes also not granted for cases such as rape.


Detention provisions


Article 37(b) of the CRC stipulates that ’detention shall be for the shortest appropriate period of time’.This CRC provision is supported by Rule 19 of the Beijing Rules, which states that ’the placement of a juvenile in an institution shall always be a disposition of last resort and shall be for the minimum necessary period’.


According to the matron54 of the Remand Home at Kingtom, until May 2007 offenders normally stayed at the home for a period of six months to one year before they were released, charged or sent to the Approved School. Many factors, including the lack of transportation, the non-availability of a specific court for juveniles or of a magistrate, had been responsible for the arbitrary detention of children in contravention of international standards. It was stressed, however, that since May 2007 the longest detention period at the home had been three months, even though this is still too long. During the visit to the Remand Home it was found that a school boy aged 13 years had already spent 11 weeks at the home without having made a single appearance at the juvenile court.


Right to be heard and to cross-examine witnesses


Articles 40(2)(b)(iii) and 12(2)55 of the CRC guarantee the child’s right to be heard in judicial proceedings. In practice, and in accordance with section 15 CAP 44 of the 196056 Laws of Sierra Leone, juvenile offenders are given the opportunity to be heard in court. It was revealed that before the start of trial sessions offenders are asked to explain what led to their prosecution in the juvenile court, regardless of whether a legal representative is present in court or not. Remand inmates interviewed confirmed that they are allowed to speak in court.


On the issues of witnesses, if they are available, they are normally cross-examined. It was, however, disclosed that getting witnesses to appear at a court hearing is rather difficult and can lead to frequent adjournments of Juvenile Court cases.57 It was also indicated that witnesses, if they do appear, are discouraged by the time they need to spend at court before a juvenile case is called. Most witnesses appear just once and do not turn up when called thereafter.


The right to appeal


The right to appeal is enshrined in Part V11, section 41 of the Laws of Sierra Leone58 and Article 40(2)(b)(v) of the CRC59. According to the law, juvenile offenders are supposed to be informed about their right to appeal at the close of trial in the Magistrates’ Court. In the past, however, this has not been the practice (Lawyers Centre for Legal Assistance 2005). The Court Clerk said that this had changed and that juveniles were now informed about their right to appeal. Appeals were seldom lodged, however.


Approved School Order


Chapter 44, section 26(1) of the Laws of Sierra Leone gives the court the power to place a child or a young person in the custody of an Approved School until the age of 18, or for any shorter period that must, however, be greater than two years. If a young person is over 16 at the time of being sentenced, the child will only be committed until s/he is 18. A visit to the Approved School in June 2008 revealed, however, that in breach of this law six offenders already above the age of 16 years were sentenced to between three and five years imprisonment. Specifically, one of the 16-year-old offenders was sentenced in June 2008 to five year’s detention for burglary, which will make him 21 years old at the time of release.60


These inconsistencies on the part of law officers are clear manifestations of arbitrary detention contrary to the provision of chapter 44, section 20(2) of the Laws of Sierra Leone, which stipulates that ’court orders for juveniles should not exceed a period of three years’.Two boys aged 10 years each were found at the Approved School. Apparently they were brought in by their parents because of stubbornness and continuous truancy.


In June 2008, during Sierra Leone’s presentation of its second-period report to the 48th session of the CRC, the committee urged Sierra Leone to ensure that juvenile standards are fully recognised and implemented, particularly in relation to articles 37(b), 39 and 40 of the convention, as well as the Beijing Rules, the Riyadh Guidelines and the Havana Rules. The committee expressed its dissatisfaction with Sierra Leone’s non-compliance with the law and urged the country to ensure that when detention is carried out it is done in compliance with the law and with respect for the rights of the child as set out under the convention.61


The Approved School and Remand Homes


The primary goal of a juvenile justice system is the rehabilitation and reintegration into society of juveniles through the provision of the necessary facilities and skills. Children should be given the opportunity to reform whilst they are being held in custody. The Beijing Rules, the Riyadh Guidelines and the Havana Rules lay down the processes that are geared towards rehabilitating juveniles and reintegrating them into society.


Currently there are only three detention centres for children in Sierra Leone, two Remand Homes located in Bo and Freetown and a reformative institution for children in conflict with the law, referred to as the ’Approved School’.62 Before the civil war, the school at Wellington had poor sanitary facilities, no clean drinking water supply and no effective security (e.g. a fence), a situation that created many problems with street youths and the police. It was also reported that before the war offenders were sometimes fed three times a day, although the provision of daily meals was reduced on occasion because of a lack of funds (Ministry of Social Welfare, Gender and Children Affairs 2006).


In addition, there was limited access to basic medical facilities, recreation and education as required by Rule 2(12) of the UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty,63 even though an NGO, Rainbow of Hope, did provide basic non-formal education and counselling services. Facilities for girls did not exist and neither was there a community-based programme to integrate offenders into the community when they left the home. Contrary to the reformative purpose of an Approved School, offenders released from the school tended to be drawn deeper into criminal activities. No follow-ups were made by social workers to ensure that the children were integrating into the community (Ibid.).


During the civil war the Approved School became dilapidated to such an extent that it was eventually closed down. In 2006, as part of the government’s recommendations for improving the criminal justice system, the renovation of the Approved School to minimum international standards was prioritised. The Approved School was to provide basic services such as health, formal education, vocational and agricultural training, and recreational and other relevant activities that would prepare committed children to becoming useful citizens (Ibid.).


The National Child Justice Strategy was approved by Parliament in the same year. Priority interventions were to include the rehabilitation of the Approved School and the Remand Home64 at Kingtom, as well as the establishment of foster and bail homes in the Moyamba District. The rehabilitation of the Approved School and construction of a wall around the property for security reasons was completed in 2007, but the school could not be opened immediately because of a lack of certain facilities. It was only in May and June 2008 that juvenile offenders held in custody at Pademba Road Prison were transferred to the Approved School.65


A site visit to the school66 showed signs of government’s commitment to meeting international standards, as well as to the promotion and protection of the rights of juveniles. Rules 31,67 37 and 3868 of the UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty mandate the availability of good medical facilities and food, the provision of basic education and the acquisition of basic training skills by offenders.


Interviews with the matron of the school and with offenders themselves showed that the assigned contractors provide food69 on time and in sufficient quantities to meet the MSWGCA requirement for three meals a day. Major challenges remained in the areas of education and health. Medical facilities were non-existent and juveniles were taken for treatment at a community clinic. Since the school’s reopening, only four cases had been forwarded to the clinic. According to the matron, prescription costs were handled by the MSWGCA, but in most cases expensive drugs were not made available, leaving juveniles in a state of incomplete medical treatment. There was optimism, however, that a change of attitude would come about on the part of the government. Life Line Ministries provided medical assistance to offenders at the school. Before the war, medical support had sometimes been provided by the DCI.


Neither formal nor vocational training was available for juveniles at the school. Classrooms were available, but non-operational. The JSDP had provided some furniture and sewing machines for skills training, but supplies such as needles, thread and material to facilitate the sewing classes were not to hand. Vocational training classes in carpentry were not functioning because of a lack of training materials. Only one trained teacher was paid for by government, whilst the others were voluntary teachers.


Education and training facilities at the Approved School thus fall totally below the expectations of Rule 12 outlined in the UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, which provides that:

Juveniles detained in facilities should be guaranteed the benefit of meaningful activities and programmes which would serve to promote and sustain their health and self-respect, to foster their sense of responsibility and encourage those attitudes and skills that will assist them in developing their potential as members of society.

Currently there are no accommodation constraints. The newly constructed dormitories can accommodate 35 offenders on cement beds topped by good mattresses. The JSDP also had a dormitory constructed for girls. The squatting toilets were in a good state and toiletry supplies were efficiently provided by MSWGCA contractors. No clothing is provided for offenders, but they may receive clothes through the goodwill of workers.


At the time of the visit the Approved School housed 15 offenders and two boys aged 10 years who had been brought in by their parents as a measure to modify their behaviour.


Punishment at the Approved School


Solitary confinement and compound cleaning duty are the two main forms of punishment meted out at the Approved School. The duty officer confirmed that corporal punishment was banned at the school. Time spent in solitary confinement in a small room-like cell was at the discretion of the staff.70 It should be noted that punishment of solitary confinement contravenes Rule 6771 of the UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty.


The Remand Homes


According to reports by the matron of the Remand Home in Freetown, Harvey (2000) and LAWCLA (2005), there has been some improvement in conditions at the home in Freetown compared to previous years. Originally, food supply to the home was irregular as contractors were not paid on time by the MSWGCA. As a result, inmates did not get three meals a day, which drove them to absconding from the home. Sanitary conditions and health facilities were appalling, mattresses were tattered and not available in some rooms, and educational facilities were non-existent. Children were sometimes locked up in a small room as punishment, whilst poor security facilities permitted others to escape.72


The JSDP, as part of its strategic goal to deliver child justice, rehabilitated the Remand Home. The home has two dormitories for boys and girls respectively. At the time of the visit, all rooms had cement beds, but not all beds had mattresses. A perimeter wall had been built by the DFID to improve the security of inmates. Food was supplied regularly by MSWGCA contractors and offenders were being served three times a day. The home housed 13 male and one female offender of whom one was detained for murder, one for sexual abuse, one for threat of life and 11 for assault and larceny.


Educational facilities in the Remand Home do not receive government support. A specific classroom for learning is not available, but one of the empty rooms at the home could be used for classes. Chairs and tables had already been provided. From 2004 the DCI supported a teaching and learning project at the home in English and mathematics, but his intervention became ineffective at a certain point because of funding constraints. The DCI recommenced its educational support to the home in 2007, although on a very limited scale. No trained teachers are available, but students from the Milton Margai College of Education and the Fourah Bay College intermittently assist at the home.


The government also does not provide health facilities to the home. GOAL, an NGO working with street children, takes care of all medical expenses and normally visits the home on once a week. Referral cases are taken to the Police Hospital located near the home and the bills are settled by GOAL.


The Permanent Secretary of the MSWGCA advised that in April 2008 the ministry had met with the various stakeholders, including UNICEF, the Ministry of Health, DFID and the Ministry of Education to discuss how educational and health facilities could be provided at the home.73 To date, however, there has been no action.
Concerning security at the home, the recently raised perimeter wall is considered too low. The matron of the home related how in April 2008 an offender escaped by using a rope to climb an electric pole close to the fence. Another offender escaped by forcing his way through the secured roof. A site inspection revealed damage to corridor balustrades caused by offenders intent on making their escape.


The home has a small recreation field where football is played. LAWCLA donated a television and video set in May 2008. The home is staffed by four persons, including the officer-in-charge, the matron, the duty officer and a storekeeper. From June 2008, police and prisons staff were deployed at the home to provide security.


During the 48th session of the CRC in 2008 the committee raised concerns about Sierra Leone’s understaffed and ill-equipped remand homes and approved school, singling out inadequate security, poor learning facilities and the little recreation provided.74


Few parents visit the children, most of whom are street children. The Probation Officer75 indicated that in most cases the residential addresses provided by the offenders were false. Unlike the situation at the Approved School, no punishment is administered at the home is this would be a violation of the rules.

Lack of appropriate training


It was observed that none of the personnel involved with juvenile offenders, e.g. the Court Clerk, police officers, Justices of the Peace, caretakers at the Remand Homes and the Approved School, had received any training related to the handling of juveniles. According to the Juvenile Court Clerk general training on court procedures had been conducted in 2006, but this had not been specific as regards juveniles. Remand Home and Approved School staff members acknowledged that not a single one of them had had training on juvenile-related issues. This contravenes Rule 22.1 of the UN Rules, which stipulates that professional education and in-service training courses should be provided to maintain the necessary and professional competence of all personnel dealing with juveniles.

Institutional capacity and statutory safeguards


MSWGCA is the lead ministry mandated to provide services for children in relation to the protection of their rights. It has two divisions, namely the Social Welfare Division and the Gender Division. The chief social development officer is the professional head in charge of all child protection activities, including the probation units. A probation officer is based in each of three regional towns and each monitors two courts. The Western Area office has a staff of five headed by a probation officer, whilst the 12 districts have only one probation officer each. The ministry’s main development partner is UNICEF. Child welfare committees work in support at the various district levels.


The overall objective of probation officers is to care for and protect children in conflict with the law by ensuring that the children are given a fair trial and protected throughout the judicial process. Other responsibilities include monitoring the detention centres of offenders, ensuring that child offenders have visitation rights, making foster homes available for abandoned children, arranging financial support to foster families, and following up on adoption processes. Effective implementation of these tasks is, however, hampered by inadequate administrative, logistical and financial support from the MSWGCA.


It was the ministry’s plan to appoint social workers to all chiefdoms, but staff shortages have prevented implementation and volunteers are now being used to do this work in the Northern and Eastern Areas, even though these services are not always dependable. Qualified social workers are not willing to be deployed in remote areas.76


The Family Support Unit (FSU) of the Sierra Leone Police (SLP) works closely with the MSWGCA on children who are victims of abuse. In 2006, 31 social workers and the heads of various regional and district offices of the MSWGCA received training with regard to the sexual abuse of children and issues relating to the handling juveniles. A probation officer77 indicated that the proposed attachment of MSWGCA staff to each FSU has not come about because the ministry is too understaffed. The few personnel based at FSUs have had to perform the role of probation officers in addition to their social worker roles, which has not been effective. Most social workers leave the jobs immediately after training.


Over the years, the ministry has consistently been underfunded. The total budget allocated to the ministry for the 2005/2006 fiscal year was Le 700 million, approximately US$250 000 (MSWGCA 2006). The bulk of this amount goes to cover staff costs, leaving little to fund programmes.

Juvenile justice reforms


One of the findings of the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission (SLTRC) was that lack of access to justice was one of the main reasons that triggering political instability in 1991. Addressing justice-related issues thus became an issue of great concern of the post-war government. The JSDP was officially launched in September 2005 with the specific role to enhance the performance of the justice sector and to promote conflict-prevention and post-conflict reconstruction. The JSDP’s programmes have been closely aligned with other government reform programmes, e.g. programmes for public sector financial management, service delivery, anti-corruption and the strengthening civil society (Justice Sector Survey Report 2008).


Priority reform requirements identified by the JSDP include out-of-date laws and procedures, delays in courts, overcrowding in prisons, improve prison conditions, better police/community relations, support mechanisms that facilitate access to justice by the poor, research and information and, most important, juvenile justice.


In 2004, 795 children (678 boys, 117 girls) have been documented and monitored by probation officers in police cells, prisons and correctional facilities in the country. This number increased to 1 046 children (955 boys and 91 girls) in 2005, while from January to April 2006 a further 194 boys and 17 girls from the Western Area and the regions were documented to be in conflict with the law (MSWGCA 2006).


Up to 2006 juvenile detention centres were appalling, leading to children frequently escaping from these facilities. In 2005 and 2006, 76 offenders (44 male and 32 females) were reported to have absconded from the Remand Home in Freetown. Lack of appropriate holding cells at the SLP, unnecessary delays in court proceedings because of frequent adjournments or a shortage of transportation to take offenders to court caused many delays in the administration of juvenile justice.


In 2006 JSDP supported the development of a National Child Justice Strategy, which was adopted by government in the same year. The strategy presents four broad strategic directions: prevention of abuse against children and delinquency, alternatives to trial and pre-trial detention, enhancement of the trial process, and the improvement of human resources and institutional development associated with child justice. Implementation of this strategy has resulted in the rehabilitation of the remand homes and the Approved School in 2006/2007, although the facilities still do not meet all international standards.


With the support of JSDP and UNICEF, members of the Human Rights and Legislative Committee in Parliament undertook a thorough review of the Draft Child Rights Bill, which eventually led to the enactment of the Child Rights Act in 2007.


In May 2002, Sierra Leone ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child concerning the involvement of children in armed conflict. As a follow-up to the ratification, nationwide sensitisation and education programmes were launched by the MSWGCA, child protection networks, the army, the SLP and NGOs. The programmes focused on preventing the recruitment and involvement of persons under 18 years in the armed forces. This resulted in 2004 in the revision of the recruitment policy of the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Force (RSLAF) by establishing the minimum age of enlistment into the army at 18 years.78 Prior to this, section 16(2) of the Sierra Leone Military Forces Act of 1961 had permitted the recruitment of persons above ’the apparent age of seventeen-and-a-half years, or of persons below that age and for whom written consent would have been given by their parents/guardians’.


Up to 2007, the criminal age of responsibility in Sierra Leone was 10 years. The 2007 enactment of the Child Rights Act raised the criminal age of responsibility to 14 years. Parliament‘s considerable concern about legal aid provision for children within the justice system also resulted in a new definition of a child. In the Child Rights Act a child is defined as being below 18 years of age, which corresponds to the definition contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The domestication of human rights legislation concerning juveniles


Several strides have been taken by past and present governments in ensuring that international and national laws relating to the promotion and protection of children’s rights are domesticated and implemented.


In 2004, the Education Act was enacted. This led to the reform of the education system, e.g. by making basic education free and compulsory for all children nationwide. In the same year, the Human Rights Commission Act was passed to provide for the establishment of an independent body that addressed all issues pertaining to the promotion of the inalienable rights of the people of Sierra Leone in accordance with international norms and standards, in particular the Paris Principles. The Commission for Human Rights that was established as a result is mandated to deal with all cases of human rights violations and abuses, including the torture and cruel treatment of children.79 One of the commission’s committees specifically addresses all matters related to the welfare of children. In September 2008 the commission organised a workshop to assess the level of implementation of the provisions outlined in the Child Rights Act.


Sierra Leone was rated at ’TIER 3’80 by the Bureau of Public Affairs of the US Department of State based on its assessment report on human trafficking. Sierra Leone responded by enacting the Anti-Human Trafficking Act of 2005, which contains very strong provisions relating to the punishment of traffickers of children. This led to the formation of the Trafficking in Persons Task Force that includes UNICEF, the immigration department, law enforcement agencies, and the print and electronic media. These groups have been actively involved in mass sensitisation programmes nationwide.81


The enactment of the Child Rights Act represented the domestication of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and its Optional Protocols, and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. The Act does not only provide a standard definition of a child – a person below 18 years as required by the CRC, but also criminalises all violations and abuses of child rights, including the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.


In 2001 the enactment of the National Social Security and Insurance Trust Act made provision for widows and children as primary beneficiaries to the benefits due to survivors of a deceased National Social Security and Insurance Trust of Sierra Leone (NASSIT) pensioner. The Inheritance Act of 2007 also made provision for a mother and child to benefit likewise.

Implementation problems


A major factor affecting the effective implementation of programmes related to the administration of juvenile justice is the low budgetary allocation to the MSWGCA. The government of Sierra Leone has many financial constraints as far as meeting international standards in administering juvenile justice.82 In June 2008, one of the observations made by the Parliamentary Committee to the CRC is that the MSWGCA collaborates with other ministries, departments and agencies that have their own budget allocations. The CRC committee noted that the MSWGCA itself receives only a fraction of the national budgetary allocation and lacks adequate funding to carry out its work related to children. The committee further noted that the ministry is very dependent upon development partners like UNICEF to implement its mandate for children, a situation that is not sustainable.83


As a State Party, Sierra Leone was urged to take into account the CRC committee’s recommendations, to prioritise and increase budgetary allocations for children at national and local levels, and to ensure that the MSWGCA receives adequate financial and human resources to carry out its work relating to children.84


Little observance is given to provisions in the existing laws and offenders are still being detained arbitrarily. The lack of remand homes for children in the provinces continues to prevent juveniles deprived of their liberty from enjoying basic human rights. Children in conflict with the law are held in custody with adult offenders and in deplorable conditions before they are sent to Freetown for trial. The bail homes85 that were established and supported by UNICEF nationwide as a rapid response measure were good while they lasted. However, probation officers were ill-equipped and not in a position to effectively manage the homes, which resulted in a number of offenders escaping and prompting the closure of the homes.86

Summary of findings

  • A limited budgetary allocation to the MSWGCA, which has the function of overseeing the welfare of children, hampers its effective operations

  • Not all law enforcement personnel are aware of the laws governing juveniles

  • The attention given to juveniles in conflict with the law is inadequate as juvenile units at police stations have limited staff

  • Children still continue to be tried in open court and are locked up with adult prisoners

  • Specific courts for the administration of cases related to juveniles do not exist, as a result of which there are many delays in juveniles being tried

  • Effective transportation to facilitate the movement of juveniles to courts of law is still a major challenge

  • Basic facilities are not available at the Approved School and Remand Homes, thereby impinging on the rights of juvenile offenders

  • There are just two Remand Homes in Freetown and Bo and an Approved School in Freetown for the detention of juveniles, with no such facilities elsewhere in the country.

  • The Probation Unit of the MSWGCA is understaffed. There are only two probation officers to serve the whole of the Western Area, which makes it difficult for them to be effective in the implementation of their responsibilities, especially in relation to collecting background information on juveniles87

  • Only two NGOs, namely LAWCLA and DCI, are actively involved in providing legal aid for children

  • Offenders are still detained for more than the stipulated time contrary to the provisions in both national and international law

  • Juveniles are still kept at Pademba Road Prison and other prisons in the various districts because of the lack of detention centres for children
    Stated national and international rules are not effectively applied

Recommendations

  • All personnel dealing with juveniles, i.e. court personnel, probation officers and detention officers, should be trained to ensure that they are fully informed about the laws concerning juveniles.

  • The government should ensure that it provides a country-wide legal aid service to assist juveniles in particular.

  • Basic facilities such as education, health and recreation should be made available at the Remand Homes and the Approved School to ensure that these detention centres meet international standards, and provide offenders with basic education and skills training whilst in custody.

  • Additional magistrates should be assigned to the Juvenile Court to ensure speedy trials and avoid juveniles from being detained arbitrarily at Remand Homes.

  • A separate court for the hearing of juvenile cases, as required by international conventions, should be made available.

  • Facilities should be created for the detention of juveniles, especially in the provinces.

  • The number of probation officers should be increased to facilitate the delivery of juvenile justice. Such officers should be attached at the zonal level to address cases specific in their area. The same should apply in the provinces.