Report: The SLP versus SLPP: Unfair targeting or lawlessness?

A report by the Center for Accountability and Rule of Law following clashes between the police and opposition supporters on Independence Day in Freetown 

1.0 Introduction:

On April 27 2016, the Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law (CARL) followed media reports on clashes between the Sierra Leone Police (SLP) and supporters of the opposition Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) in Freetown. In addition to the various sketchy accounts about the causes of the clash, the Head of Media and Public Relations of the Sierra Leone Police issued a statement on the same day providing what he said were the circumstances that led to the incident. According to the statement, entitled “Attempt to subvert the quiet and peaceful nature of the Independence anniversary”, the incident was caused by the SLPP’s insistence of taking out their mask devil (sic) for a procession, contrary to the orders of the police. The statement further accused some “small boys/girls” of the SLPP of lawlessness and the destruction of public property. The Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) released a statement on 28^th April 2016, arguing that they were within their rights to organise a masquerade dance, since according to their statement they had fulfilled the requirements. The statement accused the police of high-handedness while dispersing the masquerade dancers who were mostly supporters of the SLPP.

The Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law has received credible reports that nearly 30 persons were arrested and are currently facing various charges. We have noted media reports, including images on a local television station, the African Young Voices, showing how the police beat up some of those who had been arrested. To provide a balanced account of the circumstances leading to the incidents, CARL spoke to the key parties in the matter, including personnel of the Sierra Leone Police, the Sierra Leone Peoples Party (SLPP), and the leadership of the Odehlay Society, witnesses, and media practitioners. We spoke to legal experts to advise on human rights matters.

This report seeks to bring out the underlying human rights and governance issues emerging from the latest SLPP-SLP clash, and to make recommendations to all the relevant parties. It is important to note that a similar incident took place between the SLPP and the SLP on 27^th April 2015 at the party’s headquarters in Kenema. This report does not discuss the merits or otherwise of the cases that are being tried in relation to the incident under review as they are sub judice.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This year’s Independence Day violent clashes between the Sierra Leone Police and the opposition Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) was unfortunate for more than one reason. First, it gave cause for the country to be in both local and international news for all the wrong reasons. Independence Day is always provides an opportunity to reflect on the progress the country has made since Independence, and its prospects the future. Instead, this year’s celebration may be remembered more for the brawl between the police and the SLPP.  Second, it shows that there is still a distrustful relationship between the police and the opposition. Twenty-five years since the country was declared a multi-party democracy, one would have hoped that there would be a very professional relationship between the main opposition party and the national police.

CARL condemns the acts of violence that occurred on that day. Allegations of police brutality against suspects are as unacceptable as those relating to the destruction of property. Violence by citizens and brutality against defenceless citizens should have no place in our democracy. Even more disturbing is that in spite of these allegations of police brutality, there is little or no evidence of a thorough and impartial investigation with the view to holding them to account. Meanwhile, allegations that civilians deemed to have been responsible for the violence have been held without trial are chilling because it implies that that people can be incarcerated without trial.  The police are not above the law and should be held to the same standard of accountability as civilians. There is urgent need for an independent investigation by the Independence Police Complaints Board into allegations of unlawful detention and police brutality.

Whilst the police may have entered into the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Odehlay Union in good faith, that arrangement poses a serious threat to the ability of citizens to enjoy their constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of association and of movement. Requiring citizens to give a month-long notice – through an intermediary – of their intention to organise a procession is against the letter and spirit of the 1965 Public Order Act and of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone. In addition, there is no provision in that framework for organisations who feel dissatisfied with the decision of the Odehlay Union. We also note that the opposition SLPP seem to be notifying the police for every gathering they organise. While it does not hurt, it is certainly not part of the law that the police need to be notified for every gathering, unless citizens need a special security arrangement. The Public Order Act is very clear that the Inspector General needs to be notified only for procession.

It is also curious that the Sierra Leone Police has had many clashes with the opposition Sierra Leone People’s Party since 2007 while a perfectly cordial relationship has existed between the police and the ruling party. While CARL does not particularly know the reasons for the contrasting nature of relationship between the SLP and the ruling party on the one hand and between the SLP and the opposition SLP, the fact that there have been two consecutive Independence Day clashes between the police and opposition SLPP does not send a particularly positive message about the relationship between the two institutions.

It is obvious that there is an internal issue at the SLPP. Theoretically, the leader of an organisation should be able to issue instructions or advice and expect them to be respected by members of that institution. The fact that the Chairman of the SLPP said his advice against the Arie Wutehteh staging a parade was ignored shows that a lot needs to be done to address the internal problems at the Sierra Leone People’s Party.

In summary, people have a constitutional right to freedom of expression. That right cannot be abridged either by the police or by a non-governmental body. The police may not cede governmental authority to a non-governmental body.  An MOU with a non-governmental body is not the law. The police may not use force that exceeds the minimum needed to make a (legal) arrest. Persons cannot be held for more than 72 hours or ten days (depending on the nature of the offence) without charge. Violence against persons or property by anyone, whether SLPP supporters or the police, is unacceptable and those found wanting must be held to account without exception.

2.0 STATEMENTS BY THE KEY ACTORS

2.1 The Sierra Leone Police:

On 27^th April, a few hours after the reported clashes between the police and the SLPP, the Public Relations Department of the Sierra Leone Police issued a statement explaining the circumstances that led to the incident. A summary of the stated is provided below. The full statement is reproduced is appended to the report.

On the 23rd of April 2016, the leadership of the Sierra Leone Peoples Party (SLPP) notified the Inspector General of Police about commemoration of their 65th Anniversary to be observed with "Thanksgiving Prayer/Service at the Party National Headquarters on Sunday 24th April 2016 and on Wednesday 27th April, 2016. The Sierra Leone Police was not averse to the request and the IGP's approval was conveyed to the Director of Administration of the Party but was 'cautioned to adhere to the provisions of the Public Order Act No. 46 of 1965 'which must characterise the conduct of the entire activities/anniversary celebrations.' 

On 26th April 2016, the Inspector General of Police received copy of a letter the SLPP sent to the Ordehlay Union about their registration with the Union and intention to celebrate their 65th anniversary with Arie Wuteteh masquerade coming out on the 27th of April, 2016. The Odehlay Union responded by stating that "our Union is not in position to apply for your Party/Arie Wuteteh as requested due to late arrival of your letter." In essence, the Union declined to apply on their behalf

The Director of Operations of the Sierra Leone Police then warned the SLPP’s Arie Wuteteh not to state a public procession. SLPP’s Director of Administration promised to warn his supporters not to allow the Arie Wuteteh to step out of their party headquarters. The police, however, received intelligence that the SLPP had planned to stage a procession with their masquerade, regardless of the warning. The Arie Wuteteh defied the orders of the police and stepped out of their party headquarters. Consequently, the police embarked on dispersing them. They supporters reacted by destroying public property. 

In a nutshell, the SLP had running battles with those insisting on coming out with Arie Wuteteh but the SLP quickly put the situation under control within 45 minutes. There were no reported cases of injuries. So far 28 arrests were made and investigation continues.

The Sierra Leone Police, in keeping with modern policing strategies, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with some responsible unions as part of their efforts to ensure peaceful celebration of public holidays. By that MoU, all masquerade dancers must apply through their respective unions for a police permit.

2.2 The Sierra Leone People’s Party

The SLPP also issued an official statement on the incident, and a summary is provided below. The full stated is appended below:

The statement entitled, “The Unwarranted Brutal Attack By The Sierra Leone Police On Peaceful SLPP supporters And The National Party Headquarters”, condemns violence and lawlessness of any form and from any quarter. It described the 27^th April incident as unfortunate as it does not “auger well for our nascent democracy and peace which we have all worked hard to establish”.  The statement concedes that a masquerade of any nature should have the approval of the ORDEHLAY union as part of the process of seeking police clearance. The statement claims that the SLPP had sent a re-registration fee of Le350,000 (approximately $55) and a bottle of rum to the Union on April 11, and the fact that it was accepted by the Union suggested that their registration had been completed and that they had a right to organise a procession. The statement decries the fact that other masquerade dancers were allowed to stage public procession, but the SLPP’s was not. The statement claims that the Arie Wuteteh was dancing peacefully and event paid a visit to the Local Unit Commander at the Central Police Station, who gave them Le50,000 and admonished them to be peaceful. Whilst the Local Unit Commander (LUC), was addressing the crowd on the need for peaceful processing and dancing, a group of Police Officers under the instruction of Supt. Musa Bangura Alias RAZOR disrupted the gathering under the pretext that the masquerade processing was illegal and attempted to arrest the mask devil. Thereafter, a chaotic atmosphere ensued. The SLPP office was barricaded by the Police, tear gassed intensively, forced their way into the building and made series of arrests including those leaving the building or attempting to enter the precinct of the building. Most of those arrested which included elderly women were severely beaten, inflicting injury and bodily harm.. 

The statement urges the Inspector General of Police to institute an inquiry into the conduct of the police on that day especially with regards to their rules of engagement and the disproportionate use of force. The statement claims that this was the sixth time the offices of the SLPP had been raided by the Police”

2.3 The Ordehlay Union

In light of the claims made by officials of the Sierra Leone People’s Party, CARL contacted the leadership of the Union for its own side of the story. Below is a summary of what officials of the union told CARL:

 “We never received any letter, a payment slip from the bank or a bottle of rum from the SLPP on the 12th of April. The only letter we received was the one that was sent on the 25th by the Director of Administration bearing the party’s official letterhead. We responded to the letter giving reasons why the permit could not be granted to the party’s Arie Wuteteh mask devil (sic). According to our by-laws, the request should have been made a month before the actual day. The Ordehlay Union is a registered organisation and has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the police in a meeting that was held with the executive of the police on the 23rd March 2016 where all the names of the various groups that should perform were presented. Arie Wuteteh have been dormant since 2007, and have neither been paying their dues nor have they been participating actively in the affairs of the Union. Nonetheless, they ought to know about the bye-laws and how things are done here because they had been active members at one point. When the Secretary of the Odehlay Union went to deliver the letter to the SLPP on the 26th April, he was actually beaten up by members of the SLPP.” 

 

2.4 Interview with SLPP Chairman Somano Kapen

CARL spoke to the Chairman of the SLPP, and a summary of his interview is reproduced below:

Chairman Kapen said he went to the party office on the 27th to observe the 65th anniversary of the party as there was an official sequence of events. While he was there, it became apparent that the Arie Wutehteh was planning a parade; sohe called Director of Administration Alhaji Brima Koroma to enquire from him if a written permit had been issued to them and which arrangements had been put in place with regards to the parade. He said Mr. Koroma told him that he had written to the police but hadn’t got any response from them but they had invited him to a meeting on the 26th of which he did not attend. I told Mr. Koroma immediately that he should have attended the meeting so as to put things in place, and he advised that since the Arie Wutehteh had not been granted permit, they should not parade until the necessary arrangements were made. 

He decided to call the Inspector General of Police, who advised advised him not to allow the masquerade to go out as they did not have the permit that would have made it lawful. So I passed on the information to those who wanted to organize the parade and advised them not to proceed. I was in the conference room when I heard noise outside.  And suddenly, I saw tear gas canisters flying into the conference room. So I had to be rushed out of the office and was guarded on the way out. I cannot give an account of whatever happened afterwards. He said he authority has always been undermined by members of the party. Based on what he saw while leaving the office as well as the explanation he received later on, it was clear that the police used excessive force that might have escalated the entire situation.”

 

2.5 The Account Defence Lawyer Musa Mewa: 

Defence Counsel Mewa said after they received news of the incident and the ensuing arrests, he and his colleagues visited the Central Police Station in Freetown. While at the police station, the officers informed them that they had arrested 28 people who were in their custody. On 28th April 2016, they went to the Central Police Station again and sought leave of the police to have a conference with some of the suspects in their custody. Based on the information they received from some family members of the suspects, they asked the police to allow them access to some suspects who were in detention, including the Women’s leader Madam Lulu Sheriff, who is a hypertensive patient and who had been  beaten up by some police officers. He said there was also an old man who they spoke to after he had been brought out of the police cell. He said he had a cut on his head as he said the police arrested him inside the party office where he was whacked on the head with a baton by a police officer. He said the old man’s shirt had blood stains on it and his wound was not properly treated by the police medical officers as the hair around the wound was not shaved and wasn’t properly dressed to prevent an infection. He said there was also another man who had some problems with his shoulder as a result of the whacking he received from the police officers. According to him, there were also others who were in pretty bad shape, and who had not received treatment. He said they had been held in custody for more than a week at the time of this interview. Their detention beyond 72 hours may very well be contrary to the Constitution, which states no one should be held in custody for more than 72 hours for minor offences. Some of the people who were brought out by the police had blood stains on their clothes and they wore the same attire they had on two days after they had been arrested.”

Key Issues arising from the various accounts:

1. Legal basis of permit for procession: The role of the Sierra Leone Police

The 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone guarantees freedom of movement and of assembly, but not without limitations. The exercise of those rights can be restricted in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, and public health, among others. Section 17(1) of the 1965 Public Order Act requires every person who intends to take part or takes part in organising or holding any procession to first notify the Inspector of Police in writing of his intention to do so, and any person who fails to give such notification shall be guilty of an offence. Section 17(2) of the Act obligates the Inspector General of the Sierra Leone Police to state in writing whether the procession will be allowed or disallowed or to impose such conditions as he shall think fit on any procession where in his opinion the interests of defence, public order, public safety or public morality so require. Our laws grant the Inspector General of Police to make an assessment and decide whether or not to disallow or impose such conditions on any procession.

Based on the accounts of the Sierra Leone Police and the leadership of the Odehlay Union, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed in March 2016 under which only the Odehlay Union can apply for police permit from the Sierra Leone Police for all intending to organise a masquerade dance or procession. While the Sierra Leone Police may have entered into this agreement in good faith, the terms of the MoU pose two key risks:

1. A threat to citizens’ right to Freedom of Association

The March 23, 2016 Memorandum of Understanding between the Sierra Leone Police and the Odehlay Union has the potential of violating citizens’ right to freedom of association. The 1991 Constitution clearly guarantees freedom of association. There is no law that imposes an obligation on every masquerade dancer to belong to a union or association. No person or organisation should be forced to join a union. Whilst the Memorandum of Understanding between the Sierra Leone Police and the Odehlay Union does not state that every masquerade dancer must belong to the Union, obtaining a security clearance requires them to belong to the Union. The Odehlay Union cannot possibly apply for police permit for non-members. It raises the question: how would masquerade dancers who do not belong to the Odehlay Union apply for a security permit from the Sierra Leone Police? In this particular instance, there is a disagreement between the opposition Sierra Leone People’s Party and the Odehlay leadership as to whether the former actually applied for permission to process on the 12^th April. There is even a disagreement whether the party paid its registration fee, suggesting that the Arie Wuteteh is not a member of the Odehlay Union. In the circumstance, the Odehlay Union was under no obligation to apply for security clearance on behalf of the SLPP, even if the request was submitted in good time. If the SLPP was not technically part of the Odehday Union, why did they have to apply for police permit through the Union? The Sierra Leone Police is a public institution, and can be held accountable by the public if it fails to diligently and professionally discharge its mandate. The same cannot be said of the Odehlay Union, though. This is why the police should ensure that citizens should not be unnecessarily deprived of their fundamental rights such as freedoms of movement by indirectly imposing a mandatory obligation on them to belong to unions.

1. The role of the Inspector of Police under the Public Order Act:

Although the MoU between the police and the Odehlay Union does not expressly give the Union the power to issue security clearance to mask devils, the fact that without the Union’s recommendation a mask devil cannot be issued a permit clearly constitutes a breach of the Public Order Act. The law provides that all persons intending to organise a procession should directly notify the Inspector General of Police. It does not make any provision for an intermediary that has the power to decide whether or not to make such an application.

The Sierra Leone Police bears the statutory responsibility of approving or rejecting applications for procession. It is a very important job in light of the constitutional guarantees of citizens’ freedom of movement. Pursuant to the MoU between the Sierra Leone Police and the Odehlay Union, the police can only issue a permit to mask devils who apply through the Odehlay Union or such other associations. This presupposes that Odehlay Union has to make an independent assessment of the applicants’ ability to control their followers and ensure that they do not breach peace. The Chairman of the Union confirmed to CARL that all the mask devils they recommended for police permit during the Easter and Independence celebrations were approved by the police. It may very well be that the police will carry out an independent assessment, but it is worth pointing out all the mask devils recommended by the Odehlay Union were approved by the police.

Even though the MoU may have been signed in good faith, it provides no guarantee that those approved through this arrange will fully comply with security regulations. We have evidence that some of those mask devils recommended by the unions and approved by the police engaged in unruly behaviou on 27^th April, 2016.

“It seems like” is informal. “It seems” or “it appears” might be better. “no foolproof” contains a typo but perhaps better to rephrase. Keep the same date format as above.

1. Lack of flexibility or appeal process

The byelaws of the Odehlay Union make the application process too rigid. It lacks flexibility in that any member of the Union who wishes to parade should apply through the Union for a police permit at least one month in advance. The 1991 Constitution and the Public Order Act do not impose such rigid conditions on citizens who wish to exercise their rights. In the current matter, the Odehlay Union had submitted the list of applicants on 23^rd March 2016 and because the Sierra Leone People’s Party applied well after that date, the Odehlay Union could not recommend the Arie Wuteteh to the police for security permit. The SLPP’s Arie Wuteteh claims it applied for permit through the Odehlay Union on 12^th April, but the Odehlay Union insists that it only received an application from the SLPP on 25^th April. Even if SLPP’s claim of having submitted an application on 12^th April is true, it would have still been outside the deadline imposed by the Odehlay Union’s byelaws. This is why CARL thinks the MoU, regardless of its best intentions, should be reviewed to ensure that individual masquerade dancers can directly apply to the police for security clearance. It is certainly within the powers of the police to impose at least 48-hour period of notification, but it is clearly inappropriate for the Odehlay Union to impose a month-long cut off period.

Equally important is the fact there does not seem to be any appeal process under the Union’s byelaws. What is the mechanism for reviewing the Union’s decision if it is deemed to be unfair? If the police make a decision deemed to be unfair, citizens can hold the police to account. While the masquerade unions can develop and adopt byelaws, they should not in any way or form inhibit the citizens or organisations from exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights. Unfortunately, the MoU between the police and the masquerade unions has the potential of undermining citizens’ ability to exercise such rights.

1. Applications for procession:

In terms of the power of the police to issue security, two points need to be made: First, that the law provides three options to the police in assessing applications for permit; and secondly, the law does not require citizens to seek police clearance or permit for every gathering or celebration.

With respect to the first point, it is important to note that Section 17(2) of the Public Order Act requires the Inspector General of Police to state in writing whether an application for procession will be allowed; whether it will be disallowed; or to impose such conditions as he shall think fit on any procession in the interest of defence, public order, public safety or public morality. In essence, the law places an obligation on the police to do one of three things: refuse an application; approve it without any conditions; or approve with some conditions. This is a particularly important point in light of the fact that the Odehlay Union may decide not to apply on behalf of a member of the union, thus depriving that member a chance to have their application assessed by the police and conditionally approved. This is an additional reason for the police to ensure that it is the only institution that is directly receiving and assessing applications for procession from the public.

In terms of the range of activities for which citizens need police clearance, it is disturbing that citizens believe - and the police somewhat seem to be endorsing the belief they need to notify the police for every gathering. The opposition SLPP actually had to write a letter to the police notifying them about the gathering for their anniversary celebration. They did not have to give such notification. This sends a disturbing impression that the police are looming large over the daily affairs of citizens. This raises the need to undertake public education about the powers and obligations of the police under the Public Order Act 1965.

 

1. Alleged Human Rights Violations and Police Accountability

It has to be said from the outset that the police have a difficult job of maintaining law and order. This job requires them not only to prevent disorder, but to also restore peace where there is violence or chaos. Our laws and international human rights instruments require the police to discharge this function with utmost respect for the citizens’ rights, including even persons suspected of having committed an offence. Apart from allegations of police brutality by officials of the opposition Sierra Leone People’s Party, CARL has also viewed images on the African Young Voices (AYV) television of police officers manhandling a defenceless woman who had been arrested in or around the vicinity of the opposition SLPP headquarters. The image of a woman being beaten up after she had been arrested was disturbing. There was also an allegation from one of the defence lawyers that some of the suspects had blood stains on their shirts, and sustained injuries from batons used by police officers. Sierra Leone is a signatory to the Convention Against Torture, and police officers are under obligation to ensure that suspects are treated humanely. Additionally, our legal system guarantees the presumption of innocence of accused persons. Regardless of the offences suspected are deemed to have committed, their rights under our laws and international human rights instruments must be respected. The Rules of Engagement of the police do not allow police officers to use disproportionate force against civilians, regardless of the gravity of the offence they are deemed to have committed. The images are disturbing, as well as the allegations about the SLPP supporters, and both need to be investigated and addressed. We also received a report about SLPP supporters beating up a member of the Odehlay Union. This allegation needs to be investigated as well.

1. Destruction of public property

CARL has seen the press release issued by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) detailing the extent of damage caused to their property. We also read the statement of the Sierra Leone Police on a similar issue; CARL has also seen media reports on the destruction to public property; CARL also notes the allegation by the SLPP that the police raided their offices and destroyed property belonging to the party. CARL condemns the destruction of public property, including particularly the destruction of property belonging to the ACC. Violence and destruction of property should have no place in our society. We fully support the ongoing investigation and trial of those deemed to have been responsible. We urge the police, however, to carry out the investigation in a dispassionate and professional manner having due regard for the human rights safeguards provided under our laws and international human rights instruments.

 

1. Command and control at the SLPP

While CARL insists that the current arrangement between the SLP and the Odehlay Union regarding the issuance of security clearances does not promote respect for citizens’ right to freedoms of association and of movement, it is absolutely crucial that members of the opposition SLPP demonstrate more recognition and respect for the leadership structure of the party. While the Chairman of the party accuses the police of having used excessive force, which may have escalated the situation, he also pointed out that he did warn the organisers of the Arie Wutehteh not to start a procession without a valid police clearance. They obviously ignored his recommendation, which certainly contributed to the events that followed. There is clearly an urgent need for the SLPP to ensure better understanding among members of its executive. This recommendation is based not only on this specific incident, but on several others preceding the incident under review.

1. Lawlessness or unfair targeting

Since 2007, there have been numerous incidents between the Sierra Leone Police and the opposition Sierra Leone Peoples Party. The SLPP claims that the police have attacked their party headquarters six times. We note, with particular emphasis, the incidents in the last two years associated with the celebration of the SLPP’s founding day. On 27^th April 2015, while members of the Sierra Leone People’s People Party were celebrating the founding of their party in Kenema, 15 persons were arrested for unlawful procession at their party office. According to an Amnesty International report, “Witnesses described how police fired tear gas into a crowd of about one hundred people and how people were beaten with canes. The police later stated the arrests were carried on under the State of Public Emergency provisions prohibiting public gatherings and claimed they had refused permission for the protest to be held. The Chairperson of SLPP in Kenema, Ella Goba, and Public Relations Officer Dawson Kuyateh, were then arrested and beaten when they went to the police station to enquire about the persons detained.”

Last year’s incident is similar to what happened at the SLPP headquarters on 27^th April 2016. Supporters of the party were arrested and detained for allegedly staging an unlawful procession. Those arrested included at least a 65-year old woman who had reportedly gone to the police station to ask about why their relatives had been arrested.  Like in 2015 at the SLPP office in Kenema, there have been allegations of police brutality against protesters who were arrested at the SLPP headquarters in 2016.

These two incidents, among others, raise a question as to whether the SLPP are simply a lawless party or that they are being unfairly targeted by the police. We have no evidence to show that the SLPP is deliberately lawless or that they are being unfairly targeted, but it is quite curious that there have been many violent clashes between members of the SLPP and the Sierra Leone Police since 2007. Interestingly, though, there has been none of such incidents between the ruling party or indeed any of the smaller opposition parties and the Sierra Leone Police. A reflection on the pre-2007 environment would show a striking similarity between the current relationship of distrust between the SLP and the SLPP and the similar unhealthy relationship that existed between the Sierra Leone Police and opposition parties like the All People’s Congress and the People’s Movement for Democratic Change. In the run up to the 2007 elections, there were several allegations against the SLP of bias and unfair treatment of opposition parties. The SLP has a responsibility of delivering its mandate in ways that inspire public confidence in its independence and professionalism. The fact that the ruling party has been to organise public events, including by organising a peaceful convention for at least 600 members during the Ebola crisis, means that the SLP has a model that works. It is the responsibility of the SLP share this model with the public, and the SLPP in particular, with the view to ensuring that it works for all.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• We recommend that the Sierra Leone Police discontinue the Memorandum of Understanding with the masquerade unions as it undermines the right of citizens to exercise some fundamental civil liberties. The byelaws of the Odehlay Union require a 30-day notice from its members intending to organise a parade. Otherwise, the Union cannot apply for police clearance on their behalf. By signing an MoU with the union, the police have essentially endorsed the view that citizens need to give the police a 30-day notice of their intention to parade. This is both against the letter and spirit of the Constitution of Sierra Leone and the 1965 Public Order Act. The MoU should be discontinued.
• In the alternative, we recommend that the police urge the masquerade unions to review their byelaws in order to reduce the 30-day period of notice to a maximum of 72 hours. As part of that review process, we also recommend that a provision be included in the byelaws that allows for an appeal process. As of now, members of the Union have no means of challenging a decision by the Union not to apply on their behalf, for example. The byelaws should provide for a way to appeal against the decision of the union.
• The allegations about police brutality are quite serious. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that we have received allegations about police brutality in dispersing protesters who are members of the Sierra Leone Peoples Party. We recommend that Independent Police Complaints Board undertake a thorough investigation into the allegations of police brutality, and where evidence exists, make appropriate recommendations for those responsible to be held accountable.
• CARL received two somewhat contradictory statements from the same executive of the opposition Sierra Leone People’s Party. While the statement from the Acting Secretary General felt that the party had fulfilled the criteria for the Arie Wuteteh to parade, the Chairman of the party said the party did not have the required authorization to proceed and had warned the Arie Wuteteh not to parade as they had not obtained the requisite permit. His advice was ignored. We recommend that the party officials make serious efforts at ensuring that there is better understanding among all the executive members of the party. This could prevent such incidents in the future. The Arie Wuteteh could have respected the Chairman’s advice and consider the possibility of filing a court action against the Sierra Leone Police afterwards.
• In light of the number of clashes between the main opposition Sierra Leone Peoples Party and Sierra Leone Police particularly in the last couple of years, we urge the Political Parties Registration Commission to play an intermediary role in addressing the apparent suspicion and distrust that exist between the two institutions. This is particularly important as the country prepares for the next general elections.

 

• CARL condemns the destruction of public property. Violence has no place in our grievance resolution mechanism. We commend the ongoing investigations into the allegations. We urge the police to carry out a thorough and fair investigation, but must do so having due regard to the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the suspects. Allegations of destruction of property belonging to the opposition SLPP should also be investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Board.

 

• We recommend that the Sierra Leone Police undertake massive public education about the 1965 Public Order Act, especially in respect of provisions relating to the notifying the Inspector General of Police before procession. This recommendation is based on the letter from the SLPP notifying the Inspector General of Police about their planned activities at their party headquarters to celebrate the founding of their party. CARL believes that the SLP should not encourage citizens to believe that they need to notify the police for every assembly or public event unless they need special security.

APPENDICES

 

STATEMENTS BY THE KEY ACTORS

Statement by Sierra Leone Police:

“Attempt to Subvert the Quiet and Peaceful Nature of the Independence Anniversary”

On the 23rd of April 2016, the leadership of the Sierra Leone Peoples Party (SLPP) notified the Inspector General of Police about commemoration of their 65th Anniversary to be observed with "Thanksgiving Prayer/Service at the Party National Headquarters 15 Walpole Street on Sunday 24th April 2016 at 12:30 pm" and on Wednesday 27th April, 2016, to continue with: 1. Inter-Faith Service, followed by 2. Luncheon Sale and climaxed with 3. Reunion Night.

The SLP was not averse to the request and the IGP's approval was conveyed to the Director of Administration of the Party but was 'cautioned to adhere to the provisions of the Public Order Act No. 46 of 1965 'which must characterise the conduct of the entire activities/anniversary celebrations.'

On 26th April 2016, the Inspector General of Police received copy of a letter the SLPP sent to the Ordehlay Union touching on their renewed membership with the Union  and their intention to celebrate their 65th anniversary in grand style with Arie Wuteteh coming out on the 27th of April, 2016. In effect, they were requesting the Ordehlay Union to apply to the SLP on their behalf so that they could come out with their mask devil "Arie Wuteteh" as part of their 65th anniversary celebrations.

Since it was just a copy sent to the Inspector General, we therefore could not have actioned it. Whilst waiting to hear from the Ordehlay Union in respect of the issue, we received from them (Ordehley Union) copies of letters (Inspector General, Director of Operations, Director of Community Relations, Media One) sent to the Director of Administration of the SLPP indicating that, I quote: "our Union is not in position to apply for your Party/Arie Wuteteh as requested due to late arrival of your letter."

In view of the above, the SLP's Director of Operations despatched message to the SLPP Director of Administration requesting him to see him at Police Headquarters which he consented to and promised to make it to Police Headquarters by 5 pm. The Director of Operations intended to discuss the issue with him; more so when the SLP learnt that they were insisting on coming out whether given permit or not. Unfortunately, he did not turn up, as promised, up to 5 pm.

The Director of Operations did not relent. He called him up almost 2 hours 30 minutes later and lengthily discussed with him on the phone in respect of intelligence received that they were still going to come out despite the fact that Arie Wuteteh had no permit to come out. The SLPP Director of Administration assured the SLP's Director of Operations that he was going to talk to the membership to abandon the ideas of coming out with Arie Wuteteh after it was made clear to him that if they attempt coming out with their mask devil, the police would stop them. The final promise from the SLPP end was that they were going to do their dancing and singing within their headquarters at 15 Walpole Street.

Further intelligence received was that when the Chairman and Secretary General of the Ordehlay Union went to despatch the letter of refusal to the SLPP Director of Administration in their office, they were scolded and the Secretary General was seriously roughed-up. That matter is now the subject of police investigation.

True to their word, Arie Wuteteh defied the police and came out this morning 27/04/2016 despite repeated warnings. It would interest you to know that they even went straight to the Central Police Station with the mask devil as a show of defiance and provoking the police to act. The police ordered them to return to base but they were defiant and put up a challenge. Because the police insisted, they went loose and started pelting stones here and there.

Go to the offices of Anti Corruption Commission and see for yourself the destruction caused by these marauding boys/girls. They smashed windscreens and signpost, damaged window panes and even attempted to burn the Freetown City Council but the petrol bomb was quickly put out. There was vigorous and unrelenting attempt to disarm an Operational Support Department (OSD) personnel but he stood his ground and repelled his attackers.

In a nutshell, the SLP had running battles with those insisting on coming out with Arie Wuteteh but the SLP quickly put the situation under control within 45 minutes. There were no reported cases of injuries. So far 28 arrests were made and investigation continues.

Meanwhile, all celebrations in the SLPP Party office are put on hold as police are busy restoring calm in the area.

For your information, the SLP before the Easter celebrations, adopted a policy of working with unions when it comes to issuance of police permits especially for mask devils wanting to process the streets of Freetown; given that their activities were most times associated with violence and other anti social behaviours. As a responsible organisation desirous of maintaining law and order at all times, we thought that we could directly work with recognisable groups of people (unions) whom we could easily fall back on when there are breaches of the Public Order Act and any Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) jointly developed and signed. We have therefore been working with the Ordehlay Union based at Firestone Mountain Cut, Conference of Hunters based at Congo Town and Amalgamated Hunters Society based at Ingham Street, Fourah Bay.

 

Our working with these Unions especially the Ordehlay Union, largely contributed to the peaceful nature Easter was celebrated despite having more than 25 mask devils processing the streets of Freetown on that day. The policy of coordinating, collaborating and cooperating with Unions is making it possible for them to be part of their own security and the security of the State; thereby making them more accountable to the law for their actions. And in the event they fall short of complying with the MoU jointly developed and signed and non compliance of the Public Order Act. No 46 of 1965, they could be easily reached for questioning.

It is to be further noted that policing in the 21st century has metamorphosed from the traditional police-centred to people-centred; hence the reason behind the adoption of "Local Needs Policing" which is a form of Community Policing that makes it possible for our people to be players in identifying community crimes/problems and then help the police to solve them.”

Statement by the Sierra Leone People’s Party

Sierra Leone People’s Party

Press Release

28th April, 2016.

“The Unwarranted Brutal Attack By The Sierra Leone Police On Peaceful SLPP supporters And The National Party Headquarters.”

“The Sierra Leone People’s Party wishes to reiterate its stance against violence and lawlessness of any form and from any quarter.

The unfortunate incidence that took place on the 27th April, 2016, wherein the SLPP masquerade and followers got embroiled in a pitched battle with the national police was unfortunate and does not auger well for our nascent democracy and peace which we have all worked hard to establish.

The SLPP accepts the fact that a masquerade of any nature should have the approval of the ORDEHLAY union in consonance with police CLEARANCE. It is important to mention that an application was sent to the to the ORDEHLAY union on the 11th April 2016. This application was accompanied by the requisite payment of le350,000 and a bottle of rum (Captain Morgan) received by a Mr. Shyllon, the Financial Secretary of the union. The acceptance of the payment presupposes that the ORDEHLAY Union has acquiesced the granting of the permit of the masquerade to process. It will surprise the public to know that the hierarchy of the ORDEHLAY union is dominated by senior APC functionaries. Based on the facts, it is now abundantly clear why in the midst of the hardship, other masquerades were all over the streets, some in APC colours with the inscription “MORE TIME” and praise singing the APC hierarchy whilst the SLPP’s permission was delayed up to the day of the procession when denial was communicated to the SLPP. By that day, the masquerade was already on the streets. The masquerade and followers took the right cultural step to pay a courtesy call at the central Police Station. Whilst the Local Unit Commander (LUC), was addressing the crowd on the need for peaceful processing and dancing, a group of Police Officers under the instruction of Supt. Musa Bangura Alias RAZOR disrupted the gathering under the pretext that the masquerade processing was illegal and attempted to arrest the mask devil. Thereafter, a chaotic atmosphere ensued. The SLPP supporters were chased to the Party headquarters to seek refuge and non-SLPP supporters continued to have pitched battle with the Police on the Streets. The SLPP office was barricaded by the Police, tear gassed intensively, forced their way into the building and made series of arrests including those leaving the building or attempting to enter the precinct of the building. Most of those arrested which included elderly women were severely beaten, inflicting injury and bodily harm. The building and office equipment were damaged running into millions of Leones. Thirty arrests were have been made so far including Madam Lulu Sheriff, the National Women’s leader whose only crime was to enquire about her son arrested at the gates of the Party Office.

The SLPP is of the view that the barbaric Police brutality on our people was well planned and efficiently carried out, a pattern that is now synonymous with their behaviour whenever a critical situation arises between the Police and Civilians especially the Opposition Party and its members, In fact, this posture was admitted by no less a person than the Director of Operations, the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Al-Sheik Kamara, when in a radio interview on FM 98.1 said that the police had prepared to confront the masquerade based on information that the masquerade would not adhere to the ban.

The SLPP is therefore requesting the Inspector General to release her people without delay. The absence of the so-called Permit of Process was a ploy to deny them the freedom of association which is guaranteed by the National Constitution and to justify their pre-planned brutality. We are also requesting the Inspector General of Police to institute an inquiry into the conduct of the police on that fateful day especially with regards to their rules of engagement and the disproportionate use of force.

The findings of such investigations should be made public.

Finally, the SLPP will like the public to note that the APC assumed governance in 2007, this is the sixth time the offices of the SLPP have been raided by the Police and sponsored thugs whenever the opportunity arose. The SLPP is sick and tired of such uncivilized and crude behaviour which will not be tolerated any further.

Ambassador Allie Badara Kamara, Acting National Secretary-general”

 

Statement by the Ordehlay Union

In light of the claims made by officials of the Sierra Leone People’s Party, CARL contacted the leadership of the Union for its own side of the story. Below is a summary of what officials of the union told CARL:

“We never received any letter, a payment slip from the bank or a bottle of rum from the SLPP on the 12th of April. The only letter we received was the one that was sent on the 25th by the Director of Administration bearing the party’s official letterhead. We responded to the letter giving reasons why the permit could not be granted to the party’s Arie Wuteteh mask devil (sic). According to our by-laws, the request should have been made a month before the actual day. The Ordehlay Union is a registered organisation and has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the police in a meeting that was held with the executive of the police on the 23rd March 2016 where all the names of the various groups that should perform were presented. Arie Wuteteh have been dormant since 2007, and have neither been paying their dues nor have they been participating actively in the affairs of the Union. Nonetheless, they ought to know about the bye-laws and how things are done here because they had been active members at one point. When the Secretary of the Odehlay Union went to deliver the letter to the SLPP on the 26th April, he was actually beaten up by members of the SLPP.”

 

Interview with SLPP Chairman Somano Kapen

“I went to the party office on the 27th to observe the 65th anniversary of the party as we had an official sequence of events which included a thanksgiving service, pouring of libation, luncheon sale and a little celebration in the evening.

While I was there, it became apparent that the Arie Wutehteh was planning a parade; so I called Director of Administration Alhaji Brima Koroma to enquire from him if a written permit had been issued to them and which arrangements had been put in place with regards to the parade. Mr. Koroma told me that he had written to the police but hadn’t got any response from them but they had invited him to a meeting on the 26th of which he did not attend. I told Mr. Koroma immediately that he should have attended the meeting so as to put things in place, and I advised that since the Arie Wutehteh had not been granted permit, they should not parade until the necessary arrangements were made.

Subsequently, I sent a delegation that included Messrs Brima Keita, Ahaji Koroma and  Fofanah to the Director of Operations of the Sierra Leone, Mr. Al-Sheikh Kamara, in order to see how best they could resolve the issue. Since they did not find the Director of Operations at the Police Headquarters, I decided to call the Inspector General of Police in respect of the matter. He advised me not to allow the masquerade to go out as they did not have the permit that would have made it lawful. So I passed on the information to those who wanted to organize the parade and advised them not to proceed. I was in the conference room when I heard noise outside.  And suddenly, I saw tear gas canisters flying into the conference room. So I had to be rushed out of the office and guarded on the way out.  Some party members wanted to attack me but they were pulled off by the guards. I cannot give an account of whatever happened afterwards.

My authority has always been undermined, and I felt insulted when the Deputy Chairman and Leader of the Party accused me and Kandeh Yumkella of having masterminded the entire operation. Based on what I saw while leaving the office as well as the explanation I received later on, it is clear to me that the police used excessive force that might have escalated the entire situation. However, I warned against the parade without permit as an ounce of prevention is always better than a pound of cure but my advice was ignored.”

 

Interview with Defence Lawyer Musa Mewa: 

“After we received news of the incident and the ensuing arrests, my colleagues and I visited the Central Police Station in Freetown. While at the police station, the officers informed us that they had arrested 28 people who were in their custody. On 28th April 2016, we went to the Central Police Station and sought leave of the police to have a conference with some of the suspects in their custody. Based on the information we received from some family members of the suspects, we asked the police to allow us access to some suspects who were in detention, including the Women’s leader Madam Lulu Sheriff, who is a hypertensive patient and who had been beaten up by some police officers. There was also an old man who we spoke to after he had been brought out of the police cell. He had a cut on his head as he told us that he was arrested inside the party office where he was whacked on the head with a baton by a police officer. After he was arrested, he was taken to the police hospital where his wound was stitched. I can confirm that the old man’s shirt had blood stains on it and his wound was not properly treated as the hair around the wound was not shaved and wasn’t properly dressed to prevent an infection. There was also another man who had some problems with his shoulder as a result of the whacking he received from the police officers. There were others who were in pretty bad shape, and who had not received treatment. They have been held in custody for more than a week now. Their detention beyond 72 hours may very well be contrary to the Constitution, which states no one should be held in custody for more than 72 hours for minor offences. Some of the people who were brought out by the police had blood stains on their clothes and they wore the same attire they had on two days after they had been arrested.”

(C) Politico 19/05/16