By Francis Harding & Osman Kargbo
The Special Investigation Committee (SIC) recently set up to investigate the plotting, toll and ramifications of the August 10 protest has been faulted by some sections of society including rights organisations such as the Christian Lawyers Centre (aka Legal Link).
Legal Link, a non-profit legal advocacy group comprising lawyers, law students and human rights activists, has raised 9 fundamental flaws it identified in the Special Investigations Committee (SIC) put together by government to investigate the 8/10 demonstration that turned violent leaving about 6 police officers and 21 civilians dead (GoSL official figures) and some public and private properties destroyed including vehicles and police posts across hotspots of the protest.
The flaws, which to a large extent are in line with concerns raised by many other interest groups and people across the country, range from conflict of interest in committee members to impartiality, incriminating comments and obscure representation in the SIC.
The press statement, which indicates that conflict of interest looms large in the Special Investigations Committee, states: “Save for a few, almost all of the members of the Special Investigations Committee are conflicted in one way or the other. This is the case because they are presently holders of public offices in the state and receiving salaries at the behest of the government.
“For example, it is reported that the Chairman of the Special Investigations Committee, Emmanuel Saffa Abdulai is presently the Chairman of the Independent Procurement Review Panel and also a full time employee at the University of Sierra Leone. Also, it is rumoured that Edina Swallow, President of the Sierra Leone Bar Association is Director of Legal, Petroleum Unit and a Member of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission. Furthermore, Mrs Fatmata Claira Carlton- Hanciles is the Executive Director of Legal Aid Board, Abdulai Caulker is National Security Coordinator at Office of National Security, Abdulai Bangura is the Chairman Political Parties Registration Commission, Dr Victor Massaquoi is the Chairman of the Independent Media Commission while Sheka Mansaray is the Chairman of the Peace Commission.
“From the above, it is clear as crystal that all of these committee members are public servants occupying various public offices appointed to by the president and serving at the behest of the President. Like one commentator succinctly opinionated, “it would be highly unlikely for them to reach conclusions that are contrary to the public pronouncements which the President had already made regarding the terrorists and inciters of the violent insurrection against his government on August 10, 2022”
“In the opinion of LEGAL LINK, it was for good reasons why the Jenkins Johnston and Shears Moses Commissions of Inquiries where headed by independent legal practitioners or high standing and experience in the legal profession, and who held no public offices at the material time. This was to principally vitiate any objection of conflict of interest and or perceived or actual bias of the investigation process and outcome by the public.
“At the very least, it would have made a huge difference had the Chairman of the Special Investigations Committee not been a person under the direct employ of the government. Sadly enough, the opposite is true in this case.
”Consequently therefore, it raises an issue of conflict of interest and actual bias which may impute a need for recusal by these members where integrity reigns supreme.”
The statement signed by Legal Link’s Executive Director, a former Commissioner for Human Rights in Sierra Leone, said that a good number of the team members had already taken sides through prior commentaries and open statements on the 8/10 protest.
“Without any gainsaying, it is no secret to opinionate that a good number of the members of the Special Investigations Committee had already made their positions known regarding August 10 either by way of commentaries, statements and or WhatsApp posts made by them during and after the events of August 8, 9 and 10 respectively.
“There’s evidence to show that bulk of the majority of them had already indicted the opposition as inciters of the violent protests and further categorized the violent protesters as terrorists set out to overthrow the legitimate government of President Julius Maada Bio.
“As premature and unsubstantiated some of their comments where [SIC], it raises however an issue of conflict of interest and/or perceived bias on their part which might raise the need for a recusal by these individuals.
“Certainly, it would be highly unlikely to see any departure of earlier positions by some of these members no matter the evidence encountered during the Investigations.”
Legal Link also stated that the security sector representatives “have no business to be appointed into such committee” since they had been alleged as perpetrators of the violent deaths that occurred against civilians on August 10.
“It is trite law that a man cannot be a judge in his own cause. But construing the composition of the Special Investigations Committee, we note an exception to this fundamental principle of natural justice,” the reputed legal advocacy group states, adding: “We note that the security forces who have been allegedly indicted as perpetrators of the killings of about 25 civilians are represented in the investigations committee while the other side is not represented. In the Committee, for example, there is the National Security Coordinator of the Office of National Security and the National Chairman, Retired Senior Police Officers Association.
“The presence of these two members in the Committee certainly raises issues of conflict of interest and actual bias on the part of these members. Many hold the view that a lot of what happened beginning from August 8 to 10 was largely as a result of the failure of the security and intelligence community in Sierra Leone. It may therefore not be correct for them to now be conscripted as judges in their own cause.”
The legal advocacy group, which strives to provide legal assistance to religious communities as well as vulnerable groups in Sierra Leone, also states that the scope of the mandate of the Special Investigations Committee “is limiting and should have been broadened” to also cover the events of August 8 and 9, when the widely three-day rumoured protest actually commenced with a sit-at-home demonstration.
The statement also indicated that there was “no representation of the Youths in the Special Investigations Committee or that of the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone”, adding that the setting up of a Public or Commission of Inquiry would have best served the purpose rather than a Special Investigations Committee.
“No time limit is given to the Special Investigations Committee regarding the submission of report,” the statement said, arguing that the composition of the Special Investigations Committee “is too large and over-bloated with public officials that heads critical offices” in the state.
It further faulted the timing of the setting up of the SIC, saying: “The setting up of the Special Investigations Committee is coming late in the day especially when almost all top government officials including the president have casted aspersions on the opposition for the violent protests and deaths that occurred on August 10.”
The renowned body of legal minds, which promotes the enforcement of the rule of law and ensuring respect for domestic and international laws that guarantee fundamental human rights and freedoms, proffers some recommendations to the government.
It states: “While we welcome the move by the government to establish an investigative process to unearth the real causes of and to hold to account those that were responsible for the carnage that ensued on 10th August 2022, it is vital however to emphasize that the makeup of such investigative body must be proper, just, fair, ethical and equitable in the given circumstances so that its work, processes and outcomes will be accepted by all.
“If the above is to be achieved, the following recommendations must be implemented with urgency.
- That a Public Inquiry be established in place of the Special Investigations Committee.
- That clear cut terms of reference be set out for the Public Inquiry panel regarding its mandate, functions, scope and timeline.
- That we recommend for an eight membership panel instead of fifteen.
- That the president appoints a private legal practitioner of 20 years standing and who is not in the employ of the government as Chairman of the Public Inquiry hearings.
- That the other 7 members shall be selected from key interest groups to form part of the Public Inquiry Panel. One representative from the Sierra Leone Bar Association, One from the Sierra Leone Association of Journalists, One from youth groups, one from women’s group, one from Civil society, one from the Human Rights Commission and one from the Independent Police Complaint Board. All of the above representatives must be selected by their constituent membership bodies and institutions with due consideration to conflict of interest issues.
- That the public inquiry hearings be held in the open in the interest of transparency and accountability.
- That the scope of the Public Inquiry be extended to also look into events of August 8 and 9 and not just the violent protests that ensued on the 10th of August 2022.
- That powers to subpoena witnesses and or interested parties be given to the Public Inquiry panel and where such powers are disregarded, such acts shall amount to contempt and be punishable by law.
- That it is made clear in the Terms of Reference that the findings of the Public Inquiry panel can be appealed against by aggrieved parties in the Court of Appeal.
- That persons affected by conflict of interest be made to recuse themselves from the panel sittings.
- That the Public Inquiry hearings lasts for 3 months so that any appealable issues can be dealt with before the 2023 elections.”
In Conclusion, the statement says:
“Without prejudice to the individual capacity and prowess of the membership of the Special Investigations Committee as established in the public notice, it is vital to pinpoint that if the above issues raised are not addressed, such may have the proclivity to undermine fairness, objectivity and impartiality in the investigation process and outcome.
“For in the words of a legal pundit, “the legitimacy and outcome of an investigative process is of equal importance as the legitimacy and capacity of the men and women who preside over such investigations”.
“Where the above recommendations are blatantly refused, LEGAL LINK would certainly undertake a CSO independent investigations/inquiry into the events of August 8,9 and 10 in a bid to set the records straight and to ensure a fair and unbiased outcome of the investigative process.
“May the souls of both the security forces and the civilians that were lost on that fateful day rest in perfect peace.”
