By Umaru Fofana
In Makeni last week an articulate young man walked up to me, apparently after someone had identified me to him. After some compliments, he asked: “What is the significance of the review of the 1991 constitution as is being done”. His tone and mode seemed to suggest that he thought there was some sinister motive behind it by the country’s leaders. A self-confessed member of the ruling All People’s Congress party, his scepticism was stunning and had to interest me. I responded that it was of extreme necessity to review a country’s most sacred document from time to time so as to bring it up to speed with the ever changing reality. “But this document has been in existence for only 16 years” he pressed on, trying to justify his position by saying that even as it stands the constitution has been violated and some sections of it enforced discriminatorily and with political expediency. I had to agree with him on the flouting and selective implementation over the years of some sections of our constitution. That has been a huge challenge with the judiciary and the police by letting down justice and appearing to be taking dictates from politicians sometimes. But I told the fresh university graduate who works for a multinational company in Makeni that when our current constitution was being put together it did not go through an all-inclusive participatory process, pertinent recommended sections were apparently expunged by the then Joseph Saidu Momoh administration, and there was a huge democracy-deficit in the country with the one-party government at the time having some antics up their sleeves. Additionally, and perhaps most crucially, I told him that it was a recommendation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which looked at the causes of the war and prescribed those things that should be done to forestall a slide back to those causes and their ramifications. “But is the constitutional review the only thing recommended by the TRC?” he asked. “Of course it is not”, I pressed on with my defence for a review, adding that some of the other recommendations could be captured in the review of the constitution including a repeal of the criminal and seditious libel law and the abolition of the death penalty, etc. as also recommended by the TRC. By his admission that convinced him about the need for a constitutional review. But like me, he had some reservations nevertheless. He expressed scepticism, perhaps cynicism, over the process. He questioned its timing to which I responded that it had to be done at some time and that it would always generate suspicions anytime, especially in a country like ours where there is so much distrust for the political class. Unsurprisingly and understandably so. He shook my hand saying: “Thank you sir and God bless you” before exchanging telephone numbers. Some two hours later he telephoned and asked whether I was a member of the committee. “Yes please, as one of those representing civil society as nominated by them” I replied. “Good!” he exclaimed and hurriedly ended the conversation but not immediately hanging up so I could hear him transmit that to what sounded like a group of people in the background. Later that night I started reflecting on his concerns. You have to appreciate them. You have to be concerned by his concerns for more reasons than one. It is reminiscent of many things amiss. At a press conference in early 2007 or thereabout the Constitutional Review Commission led by Dr Peter Tucker who had chaired the writing of the 1991 constitution, informed us of a draft proposed amendment to the document which they said would be voted on in the following election later that year. Among other anachronistic things it included the provision of indemnity for a president for life. That I saw. That I reported on the BBC. On the following day the SLPP government and the commission denied it was a part of it. Victor Foh, who was secretary general of the then opposition APC party, added his voice to mine. And the provision was said to have been contained in the initial draft but not presented. I smiled and let the denial pass so long it had been forced to be withdrawn. The other issues I may mention in future articles including how the National Electoral Commission told off the commission’s suggestion for a referendum on the matter. Now forget about the cynicism for a minute and look at the process itself and how it has got off the ground, or not. For a start I would have thought that work should have got underway in full swing on the constitutional review process if the two-year timeline given to it is to be met. To realise that a fully functional secretariat dedicated to the process should now be up and fully running. Staff deliberately recruited for the process, and not those seconded by the government-controlled civil service, should be in place. The head or Chairman of the committee dedicated entirely to the process should be putting all his hours into it. The first major setback, may be mistake, is the seconding of Justice Edmond Cowan to the committee as its chairman. Justice Cowan is a man I have profound respect for. As a former high court judge and speaker of parliament, he is versed in legal matters and has proven to have a rare bipartisan thinking having worked for two administrations led by different political parties. However, it is concerning that as the country’s current Ombudsman, leading this very important, tasking and cumbersome process will have a serious knock-on effect on either the constitutional review process or on his work as Ombudsman which will leave either or both functions largely dysfunctional. If the office of the ombudsman cannot be affected by his commitment to the review process, then the post of ombudsman should be closed because we can do without it as a nation and the hundreds of millions spent on it annually be diverted to something meaningful. As I mentioned in a previous article, there is a high risk that this very important process – a key recommendation of our Truth and Reconciliation Commission – may just be bungled like many other things have. The composition of the committee is suspect. Some individuals representing no constituency whatsoever, and their expert knowledge in doubt, have been nominated by the Attorney General’s office rather unilaterally. From the list of members I have seen, I cannot help but ask why, for example, there has to be someone representing Justices of the Peace, another representing the High Court of Sierra Leone and another representing the Supreme Court. I appreciate the fact that legal luminaries are needed in this process but one person from the judiciary should be able to do it. Their views will be in no way different. And if they have ideas they should supply that to their sole representative. Besides, the manner in which JPs are appointed is so political that they can be easily manipulated in such a process should something get heated as is almost inevitably going to be. The review process no doubt needs lawyers. But more needed are people with integrity who cannot become lapdogs of or pliable by politicians especially those in power that are not necessarily lawyers. We know how certain members of the judiciary are bereft of integrity when standing up for something hurts or conflicts with the interest of the government of the day. It is unbelievable that even though the process was billed to start on 1 August 2013, only the inaugural meeting has been held so far. There is no work plan as should have been long put together to guide the plan of the committee. That is a lapse that is bound to repeat itself in different ways because there are no staff dedicated to the secretariat, rather civil servants on secondment. My fear – and I hope it is paranoia – is that funds are a difficulty. The United Nations and other partners do not seem to have committed as much resource as is needed for the process. Yes it is our business as a country but the international community should be equally involved both to ensure its credibility and provide funds. Otherwise the argument by government that it is using its own infrastructure and even personnel to do the job will make it no different from the face of the very government. And we know what that means in the general scheme of things for an effective and pro-masses constitutional review. Scepticism that the government have their hidden agenda for the new constitution such as a third term talk, are things I do not countenance. But when you add the figures of those on the committee you start to worry if things get to a head and a vote is required. According to the Attorney General, there are eighty members on the committee. They include six each representing the two main political parties – APC and SLPP – because they have seats in parliament. The eight other registered political parties have three representatives each. The truth is that apart from the PMDC all the other parties are apologists of the government and will almost definitely support a government or APC position if it comes to the crunch as happened in the last election. Every government institutional representative is carefully chosen and will certainly go the government’s way. I am thinking here about representatives of the disability commission, youth commission, etc. That gives a figure of close to forty. And some other representatives who may be wolves in sheep’s clothing are also buyable especially those representing their individual selves. That gives the government the majority should there be a vote. In other words I strongly believe that the composition should be revisited instead of being written in stone by the office of the Attorney General. This is a process we cannot afford to and must not bungle for it will come to haunt us for generations. (C) Politico 27/08/13
