Is the government taking the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone seriously?
On the 27th June 2011 the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone gave what I called a landmark ruling on the matter between Blamo Jesse Jackson and 234 others (as Complainants) and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF) (as Respondents). The commission in April 2009 received the complaint from the ex-soldiers who alleged that since 2008 when they were discharged from service their human rights had been and were still being violated by RSLAF/MOD.
THE ISSUES
According to the commission, the substance of the complaints involved allegations of discrimination, cruel and inhumane treatment and invasion of privacy. The complainants believed that their description as ‘Chronically ill and Mentally Imbalanced’ by the respondents was false. They said most of them were initially classified by RSLAF as being in the ‘Wounded In Action’ (WIA) category but were later re-categorised, as ‘Chronically Ill and Mentally Imbalanced’ a new and previously unknown category and hence received less benefits than those discharged as WIA. They further alleged that even the reduced benefits package paid to them was not calculated accurately and therefore they were not paid the correct amounts due for the number of years spent in service.
But RSLAF/MOD on the other hand, had insisted that the complainants were treated fairly and they were given all the benefits due them.
After several steps undertaken by the commission including investigations, organisation of a Conciliation Meeting (but RSLAF/MOD declined the invitation), the commission under its Rule 23 (4) (b) considered the investigation report and elected ‘to conduct a full factual hearing of the complainant in which case arrangements shall be made to hear the parties and their witnesses on oath or affirmation and questions put to them.’
I have decided to give that brief background to the case in question in order to put into perspective the issue of whether the government takes the work of the commission seriously based on the Tribunal Decision and Recommendations (contained in a 19 page report issued by the commission) on the matter. Let me also quickly make reference to the findings of the Tribunal (verbatim) to put the records straight.
FINDINGS
- The tribunal therefore finds that the Complainants were less favourably treated in comparison to WIA1.&2. This less favourable treatment amounts to discrimination in law and in fact and in violation of their human rights.
- The Tribunal, in consideration of the foregoing, finds that the Complainants were discriminated against contrary to Article 26 of the ICCPR and section 27 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone 1991.
- The Tribunal finds that given the sum total of the treatment that the Complainants were subjected to as they sought to pursue their claims against RSLAF/MOD amounts to degrading treatment contrary to Section 20 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone.
- The Tribunal however, finds that with the exception of the medical examinations, other aspects of the right to privacy were violated by categorizing and stating in the Discharge Books of the Complainants that they were Chronically Ill and Mentally imbalanced.
In my view, the recommendations in the tribunal’s decision was written in plain and simple English which needs no legal or any specialised interpretation. Now, the Tribunal among others recommended the following:
- That RSLAF and MOD take steps to ensuring that the Complainants receive the same payments as WIA1&2. This includes the DFID supported package and entitlement to the Enhanced Disability Pension. These payments are to be made by GOSL. Ministries of Finance, Defence, NASSIT are to work together to ensure this is done without further delay;
- That RSLAF and MOD re- issue revised Discharge Books to the Complainants that make no reference to the label “Chronically Ill and Mentally Imbalanced” or to fitness for employment;
- That RSLAF and MOD effect medical boards to re-examine the Complainants who so request to confirm their current mental health status.
Now to the point at issue; the government’s treatment of the commission’s recommendations. Paragraph 90 of the Tribunal’s decision notes that “The MOD and RSLAF are reminded that under Section 13 of the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone Act 2004 the government should respond publicly within 21 days to the specific case as well as the findings, recommendations and other decision that the commission may issue as a remedy for a human rights violation.” As at the time of writing this article (26th July 2011), the government had not responded to the case in point at least publicly. In my opinion, this is a show of lack of commitment on the part of the government to upholding and enforcing the fundamental rights of citizens which are entrenched provisions in the Constitution of Sierra Leone, Act No. 6 of 1991 and the various international human rights instruments it had signed, ratified and domesticated as the case might be. One would have expected that the government was going to issue a public statement on the matter even before the expiration of the 21 days provided for in the commission’s Act. It is appalling that the government has reneged in making the required response at a time it has just submitted The State of Human Rights report at the UN Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in Geneva, Switzerland. The seeming accolade which the country received could have served as a motivating factor for the government to address the matter of the ex-soldiers with the seriousness it deserves. But whether the government makes a statement in time or on time or afterwards, there are lessons that could be learnt from this debacle.
WHAT SHOULD WE LEARN FROM THE EX-SOLDIERS?
Sierra Leone is a country in which many people have failed to stand for and fight for their basic human rights. Complacency has eaten deep into the moral fibre of most Sierra Leoneans. They believe in a somewhat erroneous statement ‘What are we going to do? ‘(How for do? It is God’s will)’ The feeling one gets from that kind of statement is as if someone has actually spoken to God and got that message directly from Him. The point here is that many Sierra Leoneans believe that many things that happen to them should be left in the hands of God. While in some instances that statement might be correct, it should not be used as an excuse preventing us to challenge the wrong doings in society. Also, the decision and determination of the ex-soldiers clearly indicate that they understood the channels to seek redress in a democratic society.
The ex-soldiers in question were perhaps not professors who possibly can speak to or challenge issues or those within the corridors of power who determine what should happen to others. But in my view they belong to the people who truly understand their rights and can fight for them even in the most impossible situations.
WHAT SHOULD BE LEARNT FROM THE RULING
The key three issues that clearly came out from that ruling are: discrimination, cruel and inhuman treatment and people’s right to privacy.
On discrimination, the lesson to learn is that those in positions of authority who think that they can share the ‘national cake’ or the country’s natural resources amongst themselves and their relatives and cronies, should be careful of what they are doing. Soon, another group of people with the courage and resilience of the ex-soldiers will start to raise questions within the confines of the law as to why one of set of people enjoyed or are enjoying something, which others who are due the same have not received or benefitted from. Like the ex-soldiers, the first complaint and demand might fall on deaf ears for the first or second time, but they would be encouraged by the fact that there is the Human Rights Commission which is always there to listen to them.
Cruel and inhuman treatment. Is it an issue in Sierra Leone? The answer is an emphatic yes. Have we not seen instances in this country in which workers are treated like slaves by their superiors in various offices. The other day, an Executive Director allegedly slapped his messenger, a sixty year old plus man for failing to perform an assigned office function.
Invasion into privacy. Everyday people invade the privacy of others, including the journalists even when the Independent Media Commission (IMC) Code of Practice of 2007 had warned that everyone is entitled to respect for his/her private and family life, home, health and correspondence.
However, I hope that some sort of ‘negotiations and discussions’ are taking place behind the scene as one of the recommendations had to do with the Complainants receiving the same payments as WIA1& 2. That includes, I suspect, a huge amount of money at a time the government is trying to get the country’s economy on its feet. But on the final analysis someone has to descend from his high horse and do the right thing in order to restore the dignity of the three hundred and thirty-five ex-soldiers. The reclassification of the ex-soldiers would definitely restore their dignity and make them employable again, in civilian life; the various payments due them must also be paid. Until and unless those steps are taken, as recommended by the HRCSL Tribunal, one group of Sierra Leoneans, had had their rights violated, by the very institution they had served; and very willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice for peace in the motherland.
By Francis Sowa, Journalist/Lecturer in Communication and Human Rights.
Stay with Sierra Express Media, for your trusted place in news!
© 2011, https:. All rights reserved.
