By Umaru Fofana
Like with previous cabinet reshuffles in the last five years, more often than not done on a Friday, there has been fevered speculation in the last few weeks about an imminent shakeup in government. Less than one year since the last. Well you have to believe the rumour mill, the speculation and conjecture, considering that it seems to be the pattern in recent years.
But you also have to appreciate how such speculation and frequent reshuffle can impact the performance of apprehensive appointees and possibly make them corrupt if only to grab whatever they can before Damocles lands on them. Or even how such entrenches fear for the president into such appointees and turns him into a dictator before whom all must kowtow or be fired without reason. Perhaps most important, it calls into serious question the president's judgement in appointing people to positions of trust.
The rumours of an imminent cabinet reshuffle are made all the more believable owing to the fact that the first casualty seems to have been the Speaker of Parliament who seems to have been reshuffled in all but name and in a manner that is both shocking, even if not surprising, and disrespectful to the people of this country. Now the Majority Leader, SBB Dumbuya, MP, seems poised to become Speaker while his deputy, Ibrahim Bundu, MP, is in all likelihood poised to become House Majority Leader. A political Tin-Tan-Too game of epic proportions, as alliances seem to be being formed or shifted ahead of the next presidential election some light-years away.
Clearly both the ruling All People's Congress and the opposition Sierra Leone People's Party lack any iota of respect for the call for reasoning from the public when they clash with their partisan interests, not least in this matter. Even though the SLPP as a party officially opposed the amendment of Section 79 of the country's constitution, our elected parliamentarians across the aisle did what was convenient for them while the media were caught pants down, pardon my French, in this stab in the heart for democratic good governance. The full tragedy may well manifest itself sooner than we can imagine.
Over the weekend I spoke with a constitutional lawyer who opined that the amendment by parliament to the clause dealing with the eligibility criteria and appointment of the Speaker did not affect the current man in charge, Justice Abel Stronge. I tend to agree with him because he was appointed for five years ending with the life of the current parliament. But if he was not the target of this ostensible gimmick why the rush when a constitutional review process is underway. Such is the lightening speed with which the proponents of this amendment embarked on what looks like a Palace Coup that you have to believe the current Speaker was on their sight.
If, like I tend to agree with the constitutional lawyer, the current Speaker will not be affected, the question persists therefore as to what use then the hurried amendment? The fact that Justice Stronge was absent from proceedings, even though he was in town and there was no report of him being unwell, fuels speculation. The fact that the amendment was almost unanimous, and the Speaker can be removed by a two-thirds majority (Section 79/4/d), shows us which way Stronge's fate lies in this farcical move. The fact that the Speaker himself has not spoken publicly about it and sounded distraught when I called him on the phone last week, even though he tried not to give anything away in his voice, smacks of further division within the governing party. And remember what he did for the then beleaguered opposition leader Ernest Bai Koroma faced with a series of litigation against his leadership when he (Stronge) was a high court judge?
Anyway, in all of this I cannot help but wonder what may have happened in less than a year to the day Justice Abel Stronge was put forward by the ruling party led by President Ernest Bai Koroma for another term as Speaker of the House. Wrong judgment of a choice, again, by the president and his party? Or the strength in Stronge's arm proving to be a steel too hard to bend? Coming at a time when, in two years from now, the House will be key in determining which recommendations of the Constitutional Review Committee go to the public for a referendum, it raises eyebrows.
Next, and more directly presidential in the reshuffle game, is the cabinet - both ministers and their deputies. And the media are awash with speculation as to when it will happen and who it will affect. This is perhaps because some of the media are misled or contracted by government spin doctors who speak of the records and are influenced by politicians for strategic reasons, or because President Koroma has the proclivity to badly handle his reshuffle. Or both. In what has been one of his Achilles' Hells the president has given too much room to speculators both by his style of leadership and by the calibre of a good number of his appointees who people would rather did not get appointed to such positions of trust in the first place. Substandard.
In parliamentary democracies the cabinet collectively decides which direction the government goes on issues and policies. Now, under a presidential system, the primary role of the cabinet is as an official advisory council to the president. The fundamental difference between the two in this regard is that, in a parliamentary system, the head of state (usually ceremonial) will almost always heed the advice of the cabinet, while under a presidential system, the president who is both head of state and of government can choose to ignore the advice by cabinet. As Harry Truman would say, the buck stops with the president. This is where ministers resign if they disagree strongly with the president's disagreeing with their policies. In principle that is what should obtain in Sierra Leone. But here not many ministers and their deputies are appointed based on substance or merit, let alone principles. Add to that the fact that resignation is not in their vocabulary. Hence they cling on and are at the mercy of the president. What this does is fuel speculation as to when ministers will be removed or moved to ministries about which they are completely clueless or out of breath to function in. Yet they will cling on or are clung on.
My research has shown that the more developed a country is the smaller its cabinet size. This is in part because its institutions are strong and provide a firewall against dictatorship at the top. A bloated cabinet only shows how centralised power is, and it does not bode well for the country and further waters down the efficacy of its institutions. This, in addition to the huge resources needed to run the government because of its sheer size, emasculates any attempt in the case of Sierra Leone, to depersonalise the presidency and end a Strong Man leadership with a strong parliament perhaps led by Abel Stronge.
Thailand may not be known for its democratic credentials. But here is what the current Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has been met with. She attempted to pardon her brother and deposed premier Thaksin Shinawatra to return without serving a jail sentence for corruption. It failed to pass in the Senate. As she attempted to circumvent the Senate leading to the Constitutional Court wading in. I know that there are some dynamics about the Thai situation I cannot explain here but obviously this is called "Strong Institutions" checkmating the excesses of the leader. An attempt at undermining that has led to street protests in the capital, Bangkok threatening to bring down the government. This system of strong institutions is what is lacking in Sierra Leone and so the president frightens anyone who disagrees with him or has the tendency to not concur. Dictatorship in all but name!
In January 2010 the president berated some of his ministers and other appointees accusing them of being corrupt. he detailed a long list of allegations - including claims that a Sierra Leonean passport can be bought by any African for $250 to $500. At a special meeting at State House he warned them that they must stop conniving in corrupt activities or they would be sacked and prosecuted.
"There seems to be some collaboration within these institutions to undermine the effort of my government....Any minister or institution caught will be dealt with accordingly not only by losing the job, but we will take the appropriate legal action for betraying the confidence of the people." He even accused immigration officials of selling passports to foreigners, police of fleecing passengers at checkpoints. What he did not do was to blame himself for doing NOTHING. No consequence. May be there is only consequence when an appointee does what is against his personal interest. This is ludicrous!
Because of the uncertainty surrounding ministers in Sierra Leone especially under the presidency of Ernest Bai Koroma there is uncertainty galore amongst them as to whether they will be sacked in the Next Friday reshuffle. A good number of these ministers were not vetted properly, if at all, and especially in recent times seem to have been appointed for all the wrong reasons. Add to this the flawed sense of judgement exhibited by the president to the extent that he had to change or sack nearly two dozen of his ministerial appointees in his first term. Had he well vetted them they would have performed better.
The Cabinet of Sierra Leone is the country's chief executive body. But when ministers are appointed with such appeasement and near joke, and are treated with such disrespect including sacking without reason or prior notification then it begs a lot of questions.
People are not appointed to cabinet today to be sacked next Friday. Turnover should be extremely low - but only if they were appointed in the first place based on merit and not cronyism. Otherwise it breeds dictatorship. It makes ministers not disagree with the president even when his interests collide with the country's, their fear being they will be sacked Next Friday. It entrenches one-man rule or dictatorship, and takes the country backwards. Go out on the streets today and the overwhelming feeling is that people - among them Koroma loyalists - want a cabinet reshuffle. A sign of the type of cabinet.
With fear and apprehension on the minds of ministers, corruption creeps in swiftly and unchecked. A minister who thinks they will be sacked next week has the tendency to grab as much resource as they can before their imminent dismissal. And their replacement may need a whole year to be able to settle in. And by the time they do, begins the worry about another Friday Cabinet Reshuffle. Attention shifts from work for country to work for self aggrandisement. This can only weaken our governance system and entrench dictatorship at the helm, and corruption at the stem.
(C) Politico 26/11/13
