Chapter 5: The Judiciary

5 The Judiciary

 

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

 

African Human Security Initiative

Monograph No 160, May 2009

 

Introduction and background

The judiciary of any country is a very important arm of government as it is entrusted with the responsibility of interpreting the country’s laws and convicting lawbreakers through a hierarchical court structure. As such, the judiciary is not only crucial to ensuring fair and transparent justice, but is also the bedrock of democracy and sustainable development. A review of any country’s justice sector should focus attention on its nature, type and structure, as well as on the conditions of service of its personnel, institutional capacity, independence and the justice dispensation process. This section examines judiciary independence, the process of appointing members of the judiciary and the whole chain of the criminal justice process from investigation to arrest, indictment, arraignment, trial, verdict and appeal.

The judicial system in Sierra Leone is a particularly interesting African case study. To begin with, the country is noted for having a very rich and important judicial history in West Africa. Furthermore, as a country in transition from war to peace and from authoritarianism to democracy, Sierra Leone’s judiciary also offers interesting lessons. The war contributed to the destruction of judicial infrastructure and a brain-drain of judicial personnel. It also led to gross human rights violations. Personnel in the police and Prisons Service were targeted for molestation and killing, and most of the police barracks and prisons were destroyed. Many top members of the judiciary, including judges, magistrates and lawyers, fled the country, leaving the judiciary without adequate and qualified personnel.

In addition, Sierra Leone is plagued with the problem of access to justice, especially as regards vulnerable groups such as poor people, children and women. The majority of the poor in the country cannot meet the cost of lawyers or court expenses. The local courts are noted for being autocratic, for not having standardised court fines and for lacking basic facilities. These and many other problems adversely affect the effective dispensation of fair and transparent justice in Sierra Leone. Although the police, prisons and the justice sector have benefitted from many reform and capacity-building programmes, problems in the judiciary are still many. This assessment seeks to look at the problems and constraints of the judiciary, and to make appropriate recommendations.

As indicated, Sierra Leone’s judiciary has a rich history, especially with regard to the development of the justice system in West Africa. During the British colonial period the country hosted the first Vice Admiralty Court in West Africa to preside over slave-trade cases. During the same period, Sierra Leone also served as the Chief Administration of the British West African states of Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Ghana and the Gambia. For many years, Sierra Leone also hosted the West African Court of Appeal. When on 19 February 1866 the United West African Settlement was established, Sierra Leone’s Supreme Court was declared the Supreme Court of the Gambia, the Gold Coast (Ghana) and Nigeria (KAIPTC 2006:106).

In the immediate post-independence period, especially during the reign of Sir Milton of the Sierra Leone Peoples Party (SLPP) from 1961 to 1964, the judiciary was relatively effective in terms of dispensing fair and transparent justice. There was very little government interference in the work of the judiciary as the country’s Chief Justice and judges, who retired at age 62, could not be sacked. In 1963, the Local Courts Act, which removed chiefs from being judges in the local courts, was passed. The local courts were, however, run by elders appointed by the chiefs. In spite of this laudable initiative, the local courts in the provinces continued to be notorious for various forms of abuse. During the 1962 elections the courts were used by government to harass members of the opposition, the All Peoples Congress Party of Sierra Leone (APC).

The judiciary began to experience serious government interference during the SLPP regime led by Sir Albert Margai (1964–1967). The government made deliberate attempts not only to interfere with the work of the judiciary, but also to undermine its independence. For example, Sir Albert removed the Chief Justice, Sir Bankole Jones, and appointed his friend, Gershon Collier. He also introduced and implemented the Public Order Act of 1965 and the Criminal Procedures Act of 1965, which reduced the rights of people accused of offences against the state. On a more positive note, Sir Albert’s regime introduced Magistrates’ Courts in the provinces in 1965, thereby increasing the provincial people’s access to English law.

 

The subsequent APC regime, especially under Siaka Stevens (1968–1985), intensified the process initiated by Sir Albert. The Stevens regime passed both a republican constitution in 1971 and a one-party constitution in 1978, thus laying a firm foundation for the executive to dominating not only the opposition, but also the judiciary and the legislature. Both constitutions vested extraordinary powers in the President with regard to the appointment and dismissal of judges, the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General. The one-party constitution was particularly obnoxious in this regard. Section 115 (1) decreed that a judge of the Supreme Court ‘may be required by the President to retire any time after turning 55 years of age or may retire any time after attaining the age of 62 years or shall vacate that office on attaining the age of 65’. These provisions were deliberately inserted to serve as insurance against judicial activism and independence. The appointment of the Chief Justice was political in nature, as clearly stated in the constitution: ‘The President shall appoint him by warrant under his hand’. This provision provided the assurance that the Chief Justice would continue to hold office at the pleasure of the President.

 

The right to appeal a judgment of a court martial was removed during Sir Albert’s rule and this saw the sentencing to death and eventual execution of Brigadier Bangura, the Governor-General of Sierra Leone from 1965 to 1968, and others. The court martial also jailed Foday Sankoh, the former RUF leader. The constitution also permitted the President to sack judges at any time and combined the roles of the Attorney-General and the Minister of Justice. Political cases enjoyed protection in court and a typical example occurred under Attorney-General Hon. Francis Minah: he did not continue the case involving State Security Department officers who killed civilians during the Ndorgboryosoi rebellion in the Pujehun District. The Joseph Saidu Momoh APC regime (185–1992) followed in the footsteps of Stevens. Momoh declared an economic emergency in 1985, which enabled him to use the police and courts to suppress the rights of persons accused of economic crimes. He also used the judiciary to eliminate political opponents, e.g. Francis Minah and others who were sentenced to death for treason and hanged.

Eleven years of war impacted negatively on the judiciary in several respects. In the first place, the war contributed to a gross violation of human rights through mass killings, torture and other forms of violence. Secondly, it witnessed the systematic targeting of justice-sector personnel, including policemen, judges, lawyers and magistrates. Many police officers and court workers fled to Freetown and to other countries. Thus, for a very long time during the war, only Freetown, Bo and Portloko had Magistrates’ and/or High Courts. The military regimes of the National Provisional Council (NPRC, 1992–1996) and the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC, 1997–1998) also contributed greatly to undermining the human rights of citizens, as well as the smooth functioning of the judiciary, since the constitution was suspended and replaced with rule by decree.

The return to multiparty democracy in 1996 under the rule of Ahmed Tejan Kabbah of the SLPP (1996–2007) introduced another chapter in the country’s judicial life. The government benefited greatly from the various provisions of the 1991 Constitution, which in theory ushered in democratic governance and the rule of law. For instance, section 120(3) of the Constitution reads:

In the exercise of its judicial functions, the judiciary shall be subject to only this constitution and shall not be subject to the control or direction of any other person or authority.

As such, there are clearly-spelt out provisions in this Constitution guaranteeing judicial independence and a complete separation of powers. It provides a legal framework for implementing the rule of law and ensuring the security of tenure of judges. What remains to be seen is the will to implement these provisions. There are perceptions in the country that the judiciary still operates in the old ways and that it is saddled with rampant corruption, inadequate staffing and infrastructure, injustice, outdated legislation and political interference, and that the judiciary is underpaid and under-resourced.

Steps were and are still being taken to address these concerns. One such intervention is support by the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) to Sierra Leone’s Justice Sector Development Programme (JSDP), which commenced its work in 2005. This particular intervention recognised the need for an integrated approach to tackling the problems of the judiciary. Strategically, the project aims to support the development of an effective and accountable justice sector, particularly for the poor, the marginalised and the vulnerable. Accordingly, the JSDP is aligned with Sierra Leone’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) and other Government of Sierra Leone (GoSL) reform programmes, including the anti-corruption security sector reform and the strengthening of civil society. The programme also seeks to establish mechanisms to improve coordination and cooperation between justice-sector institutions and to address the logistical and infrastructural obstacles to improving safety, security and access to justice (KAIPTC 2006:108). Some other laudable programmes include a new code of conduct for judicial officers and the recruitment of young lawyers to the magisterial bench to take over courts in the provinces that were previously managed by Justices of the Peace.

The juridical framework and structure of the judiciary

The Constitution of Sierra Leone Act No. 6 of 1991 clearly established the judiciary as an independent arm of government. Unlike the 1971 and 1978 constitutions, the current constitution seeks to establish a legal framework that will ensure the effective implementation of the rule of law and the principle of separation of powers. In this section, the review critically examines the extent to which this constitutional provision is respected in the country.

The judiciary is headed by the Chief Justice, who, acting on the advice of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission, is responsible for its administration. As provided for by the Constitution, the judiciary has jurisdiction in all civil and criminal matters, including matters relating to the Constitution and such other matters in respect of which Parliament may, by or under an Act of Parliament confer jurisdiction on the judiciary. There are three arms of the judicature, namely the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court. These are the superior courts of record. The courts of first instance are the Magistrates’ Courts and the local courts. The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal sit in Freetown. Apart from a High Court in Freetown, there are High Courts in the three provincial headquarter towns of Bo, Kenema and Makeni, as well as in Moyamba, Kono and Portloko. There are Magistrates’ Courts in every district headquarter town, as well as in Freetown and Waterloo. Registrars, who are responsible for the day-to-day running of the system, administer each level of the court system.

The Law Officers’ Department is headed by the Attorney-General/Minister of Justice and is entrusted with the responsibility of providing legal advice to government, and to represent government in civil and criminal matters. It has four main divisions, as follows:

• The Prosecution Division, headed by the Director of Public Prosecution
  
  

• The Parliamentary and Drafting Division
  
  

• The Civil and Commercial Division
  
  

• The Customary Law Division, headed by a Customary Law Officer, normally deals with over 350 local courts in the provinces and has the function of advising and training court officials on potential human rights cases and sentencing.

Independence of the judiciary

As already noted in the introduction, section 120 of the Constitution clearly guarantees the independence of the judiciary. Thus in theory, the judiciary is supposed to be independent in terms of the decisions it makes and also in exercising its constitutional functions. Accordingly, the appointment of judges should be based on merit and not on political considerations, and their salaries should be paid from the consolidated fund. Furthermore, judges must have secure tenure of office and be subject only to the law and the Constitution. Judges can be removed only if found incapable of functioning or found guilty of misconduct while serving. Removal must be authorised by the country’s President upon the recommendation of a special tribunal and the subsequent approval by a two-thirds’ Parliamentary majority.

Though some of these requirements for a free and independent judiciary are applied to some extent, overall the independence of Sierra Leone’s judiciary has at times been put into question. A good illustration is the appointment of judges and other senior officials, including the Chief Justice. Section 135 of the Constitution clearly stipulates that the President shall, acting on the advice of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission, and subject to the approval of Parliament, appoint the Chief Justice by warrant under his hand from among persons qualified to hold office as justices of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the President has great influence as to who assumes high office in the judiciary and this in a way affects judicial independence.

It could at times also be difficult for the Chief Justice to take an independent judicial decision, especially in cases where there is an executive interest. As the appointment of the Chief Justice is highly politicised, the person occupying that position continues to hold office only at the pleasure of the President and subject to his good behaviour. This situation compelled members of the Sierra Leone Bar Association to comment that the constitutional provision that allows the President to have disproportionate influence in the appointment of the Chief Justice and other senior members of the judiciary hangs like the Sword of Damocles over the heads of judges and the Chief Justice (Amadu 1999: 306). What all this means for the protection of the fundamental rights of citizens is that it is difficult for judges to defend the Constitution or the citizens against executive excesses.

Furthermore, combining the roles of Attorney-General and Minister of Justice in a way also affects the smooth operation of the judiciary as the incumbent is a political figure who not only advises government on judicial matters, but also has a great say in policy decisions. It is not surprising, for example, that political cases have had protection in court, as per the 1980s example of the Attorney-General, Hon. Francis Minah, who decided not to continue a case involving the State Security Department, as described above. Another example is when Momoh declared an economic emergency in 1985 and the police and courts were used to suppress the rights of persons accused of economic crimes. The SLTRC also found that Momoh used the judiciary to eliminate political opponents, e.g. when Francis Minah and others were sentenced to death for treason and hanged (SLTRC 2004: 59).

The death penalty in Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone is one of many countries where the death penalty is still legal. In 2003, nine members of the former armed opposition groups AFRC and RUF and one civilian were sentenced to death. They were accused of attacking the armoury at Wellington Barracks on the outskirts of Freetown in an apparent attempt to overthrow the government of President Kabbah. This sentence caused a discrepancy between national courts and the Special Court for Sierra Leone, which was in the process of trying people accused of crimes against humanity, war crimes and other serious violations of international law during Sierra Leone`s conflict. The maximum sentence that can be imposed by the Special Court is life imprisonment, whereas the national courts may impose the death penalty. Murder, aggravated robbery and treason are all capital crimes.

In any case, the Court of Appeal acquitted the ten for procedural lapses during their trial on the grounds that the trial judge had failed to analyse the evidence led by the prosecution and to relate the same to the law. He also failed to direct the jury adequately on the law relating to accomplices and the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice (Fofanah 2004). However, some 15 others are reported to be under sentence of death in Sierra Leone, even though there have been no judicial executions since October 1998 when 24 AFRC members convicted of treason were publicly executed after an unfair trial before a military court (Amnesty International 2004).

The death sentence goes against the recommendations of the SLTRC that was established by the government in 2000 to create an impartial historical record of human rights abuses committed during the armed conflict, and to provide a forum where victims and perpetrators could recount their experiences. One of the key recommendations in the SLTRC’s report (2004) was that the death penalty should be abolished. But the Constitutional Review Commission (REC) of Sierra Leone subsequently recommended only that the death penalty be replaced by life imprisonment in all cases of treason or other crimes of a political nature that do not directly result in the death of another person.

On 20 November 2004, Sierra Leone abstained from voting on a moratorium on the death penalty at the UN General Assembly. This abstention has been condemned by many rights activists in the country.

The institutional capacity of the judiciary

As the arm of government responsible for the interpretation of the law, the punishment of lawbreakers and the dispensation of justice, the judiciary requires qualified and competent officials, as well as a working environment with adequate infrastructure, equipment and other necessary facilities. A review of the various courts of the country in terms of human, material and other resources revealed that though there have been some improvements, there is a lot more to be done. This is indicated in the following analysis of the human and other resources of the various courts in the country.

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of Sierra Leone is entrusted with a number of tasks, including the following:

• Attending to original cases relating to constitutional matters

• Hearing appeals from lower courts

• Supervising the various court divisions

• Acting as a reference point, especially for interpreting court rules and procedures

Currently, the Supreme Court, which should have five judges, only has three permanent judges, which includes the Chief Justice and one judge on contract. Administrative support staff includes a Principal Assistant Registrar, a bailiff, a stenographer, a secretary and six messengers. The gender distribution of this staff is skewed: 84 per cent to 16 per cent in favour of males (Justice Survey Report 2008:11). Table 16 shows the caseload management of the Supreme Court in 2007.

 

The Court of Appeal

The Sierra Leone Court of Appeal has jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters emanating from all inferior courts and tribunals. The court has the following human resources:

 

According to the Justice Sector Survey Report (2008), 65 per cent of staff is male. Caseload management for the Court of Appeal in 2004 was as follows: registered criminal cases – 34; registered civil cases – 49; upheld – 2; overturned – 1.

The High Court

The Sierra Leone High Court has jurisdiction over all criminal and civil matters. It also exercises appellate and supervisory jurisdiction over all inferior courts and tribunals, and has resident judges in Bo, Kenema, Makeni and Moyamba. These judges travel to the remaining provincial areas that have no resident judges.

There are currently eight High Court judges in the country against an ideal number of not less than nine. The caseload management of the High Court in 2007 was 75 criminal cases and 835 civil cases. The average trial duration is now seven days, as compared to 105 days in 2004 (Justice Sector Survey Report 2008:13).

Magistrates’ Courts

The Magistrate’ Courts in Sierra Leone have jurisdiction to try minor criminal and civil cases. They also have appellate jurisdiction over local courts within the judicial district. There are 12 working Magistrates’ Courts throughout the provinces and 10 in the Western Area. The available human resources of the Magistrates’ Courts are 16 magistrates, including three Principal Magistrates and three Senior Magistrates. The gender distribution is 88 per cent male. There are 39 court staff, of whom 88 per cent are male (Justice Sector Survey Report 2008:13).

The foregoing details suggest that although serious efforts have been made over the years to improve the state of the judiciary in terms of infrastructure, human and other resources, there are still major problems in the area of institutional and management capacity. Problems that plagued the judiciary prior to the outbreak of the war persist. For example, the courts lack adequate libraries, recording equipment, training facilities and in-service training. Judges often have to write down their own trial records and decisions by hand. Owing to poor conditions of service and low salaries, it is very difficult to attract qualified lawyers to the bench. In addition, there are problems such as outdated statutes, complex relationships between the formal legal system and customary law, and failure to report case law.

Judges and lawyers have too large a case load and too little time and resources to handle cases efficiently. Over the years this has led to numerous adjournments and delays in the dispensation of justice. Some programmes have been put in place to address the difficulties, such as the mainstreaming of community policing within the SLP, the introduction of modernised rules of civil procedure by the judiciary, and a UNDP-initiated programme of case tracking and reporting system for Magistrates’ Courts.

The dispensation of justice in the country is the responsibility of a number of actors. These include the SLP that is responsible for investigating crimes, prosecution and producing witnesses or accused persons in courts; the Prisons Service that produces accused persons in court from prisons; the lawyers that provide legal advice and represent the accused; the expert government witnesses such as pathologists who provide evidence as required; and the Ministry of Social Welfare that provides probation reports to assist with sentencing. The limited level of cooperation between these actors sometimes explains the delays and inefficiencies experienced in the judicial system.

Conclusions

The review of Sierra Leone’s judicial system has provided information on the background of the judiciary, its legal and constitutional provisions, structure and composition, and an assessment of its independence and its institutional and management capacities. One of the major findings of this review is similar to a major finding of the SLTRC, namely that the bifurcated court system – two types of laws in one country, one for the provinces and the other for Freetown – has created disunity and injustice. Another finding is that the Public Order Act and the Statute of Emergency Laws have been used to deny people their rights, with many people being jailed or killed unjustly and many people lacking access to justice. Lawyers, judges and court officials sold justice to those with money. Another major finding is that whilst in principle, at least, citizens are promised fair hearings in a competent, independent and impartial justice system, in practical terms there are cases of injustice, inaccessibility and delays in justice dispensation. It is also the conclusion of the review that the cost of hiring a lawyer is far beyond the means of the vast majority of citizens.

Recommendations

From the foregoing findings, the following recommendations are made:

• There is a critical need not only for uniform laws, but also for a review of outdated legislation
  
  

• The salaries and other emoluments of judges and magistrates need to be increased
  
  

• The Judges Conditions of Service Act should be reviewed and amended so that salaries and service conditions can be adjusted automatically without legislation having to be amended each time
  
  

• More judges and magistrates need to be recruited
  
  

• The salaries of Registrars and support staff need to be increased and their conditions of service improved
  
  

• Modern sentencing concepts, such as non-custodial sentences, e.g. fines, probation and community service, should be introduced and their application encouraged
  
  

• A file management system needs to be set up in order to monitor and track case files easily so that cases can be disposed of more speedily
  
  

• The image of the judiciary must be improved by encouraging fair and impartial judgments
  
  

• Judges and magistrates should be exposed to current laws and practices by having study tours to other jurisdictions arranged for them
  
  

• Registrars and support staff should be trained in modern registry practices on a continual basis
  
  

• Well-stocked library facilities should be provided for the use of all courts, both in Freetown and in the provinces