By Kemo Cham
Last week the hopes of pro-abortion campaigners in Sierra Leone were plunged into uncertainty after President Ernest Bai Koroma gave in to pressure from religious leaders who appear to be positioning themselves to use the Bible and Quran to influence the running of what is constitutionally a secular state.
The ‘Safe Abortion Act 2015’, passed last month, was prevented from becoming a law when the President failed to sign it in a move apparently calculated to appease a strategic segment of the population. The Inter Religious Council (IRC), which has convinced itself that the legislation runs contrary to morality, even if it, as its proponents claim, seeks to save lives, asked the President not to sign it.
The Act, passed on December 8, 2015, had been in the making for about five years, with the US-based pro-abortion lobby Ipas at the head of a small coalition championing it. The organization, armed with statistics that point to a worrisome reality faced by women and girls, says the law is a response to untold suffering and deaths due to unsafe abortion occasioned by the current pre-colonial law that criminalizes any form of abortion.
We are yet to hear anyone disputing these statistics, except for the UK-based ‘Protection of Unborn Children’ which merely questioned the impartiality of conducting a research for one’s own propaganda purposes.
But Ipas did not have to conduct any research to demonstrate that something had to be done about unsafe abortion in Sierra Leone. According to the World Health Organisation, around one in 70 women in the country dies during or shortly after childbirth. And about one-third of these deaths is linked to unsafe abortion.
Besides the compelling argument demonstrated by these statistics, by accepting their request Koroma did not only succumbed to an attempt by the religious leaders to encourage the Executive to flout a cardinal democratic principle - Separation of Power – but he was also gambling with the lives of women and girls.
By the way, it was reassuring to hear the President reminding his guests about the existence of this ‘separation of power’ principle, even though he went ahead to do exactly as they wanted.
Let’s hope that this is truly a sign of a new beginning in a new year –separation of power.
Flaw of diplomacy
This debate has further exposed a few more things. Importantly it has exposed the flaw in the ‘diplomacy’ approach of the Ipas country office.
Apparently, the advocacy organization convinced themselves that by playing diplomacy, they would eliminate any semblance of confrontational approach which could have led to the quick defeat of the bill even before it saw parliament. And they were absolutely right, only that they failed to see, or overlooked the fact that ours is a seriously conservative society. But conservatism doesn’t necessarily suggest one is entirely opposed to progressive ideas. They just need convincing.
In short, Ipas did not do any consultation on this all important piece of legislation.
This way they overlooked, admittedly, a crucial segment of the society – religious leaders.
Rev Osman Forna, IRC Secretary General, told the President at the State House meeting that there was no way they could give their position to the issue without looking into the bill, suggesting a religious summit.
If that statement by the Reverend exposed the unforgivably uninformed nature of the religious establishment, it also showed how much Ipas failed in its assignment.
We could have saved time and energy if we had debated what's perhaps the thorniest part of the bill - the fact that anyone under 18 is free to abort pregnancy before 12 weeks?
And there is still the issue of women transported out of town to show support while MPs debated the bill. It turned out, according to local media reports, the poor women were themselves opposed to abortion. They were never informed why they were been ferried or the meaning of the inscriptions on the t-shirt they were asked to wear. This is dishonesty at its climax.
It’s as if Ipas didn’t want the content of the document to be known before hand; as if someone was only interested in having the law passed in parliament?
That said, if our esteemed religious leaders claimed they did not know anything about the bill, yet they are so passionately concerned about it, then they have failed seriously in their role as guiding angels of a society already basking in moral decadence.
And as we prepare for the next phase of the battle over this issue, the religious folks can do the Sierra Leone public tremendous favour if they speak coherently.
It’s confusing hearing the President of the IRC saying they do not want any abortion law, while its Secretary General, Rev Furna, is calling for a summit before coming with a definitive position.
This issue, for God’s sake, concerns lives. So our religious leaders must tell the people of Sierra Leone quickly what they want now about the issue. As it is they clearly have no idea what they are even opposing.
Democracy is not just for the majority. Even if most Sierra Leoneans are against the law, there is that small number that deserves a say.
Music to the hear
The President’s office is no immune from criticism for its handling of the situation. In the president’s own words, the IRC first met him about the issue when it was being debated, shortly before it was passed.
According to other sources, Koroma even promised the religious leaders that when the bill reached his desk he wouldn’t sign it.
What’s baffling now is, why did he have to wait until it reached him only to resend it if he knew he wasn’t going to sign it?
Why didn’t he advise the religious leaders at the time to engage parliament when the bill was still there, instead of them having to wait for it to get to his table and waste precious time talking about something he knew the outcome of already.
And the President, again by his own words, knew that day, Januray 6th, was the last day he had to either sign or return the bill. And he so curiously chose that day for the meeting.
But maybe Koroma knew just well what he was doing. He gave in to the demand of the religious leaders in view of the fact that they command a “huge” constituent.
“The circumstances have changed. Parliament has passed the bill and the bill is before me for signing,” the President gleefully said in front of the camera.
“As it is, this is where separation of power comes. I cannot make the law.”
If it was a plan, it no doubt worked.
At the end of the State House meeting, in both the Christian and Islamic prayers said in closing, both the Imam and Reverend referred to the ‘God sent’ and ‘listening leader’.
This is music to many an African politician.
(C) Politico 13/01/16
