By Umaru Fofana
There are many things we accept in Sierra Leone as right. Not necessarily because they are but because they are regarded as the norm or because they suit our convenience or are soothing to our ears. Even when such things are the law we ignore the spirit behind that law and concentrate on the letter of the law, interpreted in a way that is skewed to please especially those in authority. One such is the prerogative of the president to hire and fire, at will.
This discretion of the president’s is open to so much abuse that it has the proclivity of turning even the most democratic of leaders into dictators. We have taken the power of the president to hire and fire appointees at will so literally and simplistically that we forget there is a parliament to approve or disapprove, rendering useless the oversight role of the House. Interests and loyalty are to a political party, not to the state.
Agreed that the president was directly elected by the people, not so his ministers and other appointees, it does not still take away the fact that he cannot sack people simply because he went to bed last night and dreamed that they were smiling a lot to people he did not like. Or that he can just go to the bathroom and come out and while wiping his water beads he realises that his former school mate, or one of his parents’ friends’ son’s friend’s friends pops up and wants to be in cabinet and the next day he is in. No!
People appointed into cabinet or other public service positions must first be vetted. And vetted very well and honestly. Both by the president’s trusted aides – depending on how well vetted they themselves are, and by parliament. President Ernest BaiKoroma has not scored a pass mark in this area. His appointments, especially of ministers, have exposed his judgement. He has had to change dozens of appointees in the last six years whom if he had well vetted and considered their characters and not patronage he would have spared himself the ever-changing appointments and the embarrassment that causes. Invariably if he had given reasons as to why some of those sacked men and women were fired, the country would have been saved a lot.
Apart from his works minister AlimamyPetitoKoroma who was sacked last week, and those who were sacked because they were wanted by the courts on corruption or other suspicions, President Ernest BaiKoroma has never given a reason for sacking any of his ministers. Yes he is not bound by law to do so. But he owes the people who voted him an explanation whenever he sacks anyone. After all reasons were given, however clay-legged sometimes, as to why they were appointed to those positions in the first place. Why must we not be told the reasons for their sacking?
Now, the president sacked LogusKoroma as Minister of State in the Vice President’s Office. He gave us no reasons. Let us assume, and I have no evidence to so prove, that Logus was sacked on suspected criminal grounds. However he managed to patch up his differences with the president over the years who reappointed him this time as full cabinet minister. Let as assume, and again I have no evidence for this, that Michel Sho-Sawyer proved to be incompetent at the Diaspora Office or KaramohKabbah feigned an accident when he worked at the Open Government Initiative and millions of leones disappeared, and they were both sacked without reasons. A few years later the former was awarded a party symbol and he is in parliament and the latter was appointed deputy minister. That is nothing if not a disservice to this nation.
Again assume that reasons were given as to why these people were sacked. However much they were able to patch up their differences with the president, the nation would not have allowed their appointments into more responsible positions. And who knows whether they have genuinely changed from the reasons for which they could have been sacked. But the president left us in the dark and did not give any reasons why he sacked them. So the question persists, why did he feel compelled to give reasons for sacking Petito?
Agreed that the roads are in their worst state in living memory or since the NPRC junta days. On that basis let us say that Petito deserved to have been sacked. So did the head of the Sierra Leone Roads Authority. But the roads are cared for by a triumvirate comprising the ministry, SLRA and the Road Maintenance Fund (RMF). In fact the RMF, more than the SLRA, are in charge because they control the purse and oversee the Authority. The question persists: why was the RMF boss not sacked? I can only assume that the circumstances under which he was brought back from the Diaspora should give us an insight.
When things started heating up in the days of President Ahmad TejanKabbah, many of those who wanted to challenge his preferred successor got into his bad book. So some of them, including Harry Will, were charged to court on corruption allegations. The thinking was that the reason behind their being charged was to remove their threat to his preferred choice, Solomon Berewa. It is public secret that Petitio was eyeing the leadership of the APC party and by extension the presidency. It will be a logical assumption that his sacking could not be unconnected to that.
Again agreed that the roads are bad. They are noting compared to the abysmal downward spiral the education sector has suffered under Dr Minkailu Bah. He is still there despite the unprecedented number of failures at the school-leaving WASSCE exams a few years ago, or even the disarray in which tertiary education has been under him. He is still in post.
The mines ministry and the murky manner in which mining contracts have been awarded is another. Yet MinkailuMansary is in post and is considered one of the blue-eyed boys of the president probably tipped to succeed him as party leader and presidential candidate. Are we talking about performance and competence? I challenge the president to disclose the performance contracts signed by his ministers in his first term and even those in his current. To my mind Petito is only a pawn in a grand game of chess in which no one must checkmate the Queen – sorry the King.
And the manner in which the president sacks his ministers is less than civil. Unless it is a law and order issue or a serious case of graft, what is wrong in calling a minister and preparing them that they will be sacked? Not for the first time, a minister has learned of his sacking from a third party who heard the announcement on radio. This is definitely not a way to treat someone who has served the country. Let the Secretary to the President or Secretary to Cabinet call such a minister, days before they face the sack, and prepare their minds. I will return to this at a later date.
(C) Politico 24/10/13
