By Umaru Fofana
Have you ever wondered whether our parliamentarians have been doing things untoward such as cash-for-question, illegal per diems and lunches and dinners, staying in hotels or guest houses in the provinces without paying for their stays, working in cahoots with the executive arm to do things the wrong way, using unorthodox means to ratify certain bills or nominations, etc. Have you? Well I have. I have, because without the requisite and workable firewall, like is so often the case in Sierra Leone, institutions are bound to be bound, not bounded, and even bent.
In April 2008 the Information Tribunal - the independent public body that hears appeals emanating from public information requests in the UK - approved a Freedom of Information (FOI) application made for the disclosure of expenses claims made by Members of the British House of Commons. Expenses which the MPs were entitled to, but were deemed to have finagled.
The British parliament objected to the disclosure on grounds it was "unlawfully intrusive". A month later the High Court of England and Wales backed the Information Tribunal's decision and asked that the expenses claims made by the MPs be disclosed. The House succumbed to the ruling on condition that certain sections deemed "sensitive" be expunged and the expenses claims be published a year later. In what was to become one of the biggest scandals to rock the British parliament, the Daily Telegraph newspaper went to town with the publication, after a leak, even before the official and censored version was released in July 2009. It argued it did so in the Public Interest. Being a decent society, the public backed them.
Following those newspaper publications and the official release that followed, several MPs - former and then serving - were charged and sentenced to prison terms. Some others were suspended from parliament and others from their political parties. The UK parliament that was elected in 2005 then became known as the "Rotten Parliament" because of the scam.
Hardly is anyone sure that such scams - or even worse ones - have not happened or do not happen in our House - present and previous. In the UK it took a few years to track. Here it will take forever and may never be noticed, if it does happen, largely because of official and deliberate cover-up and unnecessary secrecy, as well as the weakness of the institutions needed to be able to enforce accountability and disclosure of information. I bet my life that no High Court Judge in Sierra Leone has the gumption to overrule parliament if it chooses to cover up itself, in large part because they are compromised by partisan interest.
This is where a firewall needs to be created both by the state and by civil society to checkmate the House. How are bills passed? No I am not asking about the procedures we were taught in Government in high school. It is shocking to see how parliamentarians will not attend a function outside the House even if it falls within their mandate, without some per diem of some sort provided by the organisers. And they fix their fee. This, to me, is like taking cash from a business interest to ask a question in parliament on their behalf - cash-for-question. How will you hold that institution to account! With a new Speaker of the House expected to be elected today, it is worthy of visiting some of the fault lines in that organ of our governance.
I repeat an earlier sentiment I had expressed: If we get the legislature right, the executive will have no option but to do what is right for Sierra Leone and all Sierra Leoneans. Invariably if we get the House wrong and let it rot the nation will ceaselessly be in a quandary because the executive will rule the legislature and make mockery of John Locke and later Baron De Montesquieu and the theory of separation of powers. After all the true test of democracy is gauged by the extent to which Parliament ensures that the executive (government) is answerable to the citizenry; hence the constant oversight of government’s actions. But because hardly does anyone oversee the activities of our parliament - not even a civil society group dedicated to that laudable cause - it exposes our MPs lot of temptations that are not in the interest of the nation.
Each MP is given a yearly Constituency Development Fund of Le 63 million. How is that followed up to ensure it is used appropriately? Who even cares about how it is used? Are the constituents aware that such an amount is given to their representatives annually? If they do, how is it monitored? It is an issue worth pursuing by independent-minded Sierra Leoneans.
Parliamentary oversight is one of the three core roles of the House. But in a country where partisan bigotry and sleaze are commonplace the question persists as to who really and truly provides oversight over the Sierra Leone Parliament. The brilliant 2011 report by the Audit Service, which showed that huge amounts of money were not accounted for in many government departments, was virtually emasculated by a wide range of institutions including the Anti-Corruption Commission which failed to indict, the presidency and the human resource management office which failed to take internal actions as appropriate, and crucially parliament which embarked on a whirlwind tour traversing the length and breadth of the country using the audit report as an excuse. In the end we are yet to be informed as to what came out of their findings and how that can account for those unaccounted-for monies the audit report talks about. Until that happens the parliamentary tour could be deemed a distraction.
Parliamentary oversight is needed for many reasons including the detection and prevention of abuse but public offices, protection of citizens' rights and liberties, prevention of unconstitutional conduct on the part of the government and making government operations more transparent and increase public trust in the government. Perhaps most of all, the oversight is to ensure that government is answerable for how taxpayers’ monies are spent.
The oversight committees, when they visit institutions whose feet they are supposed to hold to the fire, such trips are funded, at least largely, by the very institutions they are expected to probe. Transport, per diem, etc. How can they have the moral high ground to expose any shenanigans that may exist in such an institution. If it is because of the lack of resources, it tells a lot about where the priorities lie. If you cannot feed a baby then do not have a baby. Provide parliament with what it needs so long they are held to account for every Leone received.
The Dutch parliament has citizens involvement in its oversight responsibility. Perhaps this is something that could be considered for unblemished Sierra Leoneans to be incorporated to our parliamentary Oversight Committees. An ethics committee over the behaviour of MPs should also be considered. In Canada there exists an Ethics Commissioner whose full title is Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner of Canada. It is an independent Office in the Canadian Parliament.
If such existed here, that Commissioner would have been the one to look into allegations made by the then Minister of Lands, Dr Dennis Sandy that at least two MPs were separately involved in land fraud. But for the same MPs to have investigated two of their own over an allegation made by a non-MP was inconceivable and unconvincing.
Parliament, instead of paying attention fighting over unnecessary qualification to become a Speaker, should have concerned itself with reforms to make it work more effectively. Otherwise we will have a Rotten Parliament - sooner or later.
(C) Politico 21/01/14
