REPORT ON THE CITIZEN REPORT CARD SURVEY IN BO, BOMBALI, KENEMA AND KONO DISTRICTS IN SIERRA LEONE
CENTER FOR ACCOUNATBILITY AND RULE OF LAW
JANUARY 2011
Table of Content
|
List of Tables List of Figures Executive Summary Introduction Aim of the study Objective of the study Methodology Scope of the study Survey instrument Sample Data Analysis and Report Writing Analysis of the survey Findings Recommendation Conclusion Appendix
|
3 3 4 6 8 9 10 10 10 10 11 12 25 26 26 27 27 |
List of Tables page
|
Table 1: Sex of Respondent interviewed |
12 |
|
Table 2: Monthly Income of Household |
13 |
|
Table 3: Means of going to the court |
15 |
|
Table 4: Legal Education |
15 |
|
Table 5: Legal Representation |
16 |
|
Table: 6 Agreement of Fact |
17 |
|
Table : 7 Cases handle with reasonable time |
20 |
|
Table 8 :Did you feel that the judge treated you with due respect |
21 |
|
Table 9: Do you think that the judge gave adequate time to your case |
21 |
|
Table 10 : Was it possible to comment on the other party' statement |
22 |
|
Table 11: Do Judge’s demonstrate consistency, impartially and honesty |
22 |
|
Table 12: How would you rate yourself? |
23 |
List of Figures Page
|
Figure 1: Age of Respondent |
12 |
|
Figure 2: How far is the court from your house/community? |
14 |
|
Figure 3: Extent of trust of justice official
|
19 |
|
Figure 4: Information about date, time and place of hearing
|
20 |
Executive Summary
The baseline study on legal needs assessment was conducted in four districts in Sierra Leone; Bo in the south, Bombali in the north, Kenema and Kono in the east. It was geared towards identifying and comprehending the legal needs and opportunities in the selected chiefdoms in accessing their rights related to Pro-Poor Integrity issues. The objective was to identify the legal needs of communities and identify possible intervention areas, assess the level of trust of the justice officials, the level of community transparency and accountability in the dispensation of justice, the level of consistency, impartial and honesty of judges and court chairmen in the dispensation of justice.
The questionnaire that was designed for the study was specifically for Households: The household questionnaire was designed to aid the researcher to have a fair understanding of the situation; experiences and challenges that respondents faced in attempting to access justice. The respondents were asked to assess the performance of their justice arbitrators within the justice system—formal and local courts. Access to relevant information and how arbitrators treat cases in term of fairness and impartiality. In addition, attempts were made to gauge the extent of trust litigants have in the customary and English courts. Apart from information garnered on specific thematic areas, respondents were further asked to objectively rate justice providers on issues such as accessibility, availability, quality and reliability. A total of 1040 household questionnaires were printed for the survey targeting four districts (Bo, Kenema, Kono and Bombali) and four chiefdoms per district but 743 questionnaires were responded to.
The study found out that most of the respondents who used either the local or magistrate court were illiterates or early school levers. It was also established that household income of most of the communities are low. It came out clearly that majority of the women that went to court go there as plaintiffs. Majority of the respondents do not have any form of legal education and the few that do received it from NGOs. Respondents do not have legal representation in court as they cannot afford the cost legal representation. In terms of information flow, courts failed to inform the people through information board which shows samples of court procedures. Litigants were not fully informed about official court charges. It is also evident from the research that majority of the community people do trust the NGO in the justice sector but, do not have such trust in court officials in the local and magistrate courts.
The study recommends that government should provide free legal representation for those that cannot afford the cost of paying for legal representation like the establishment of the office of the public defender. Justice arbitrators should have notice boards which display sample of court procedures and official charges. Ample time should be given to cases that do required thorough litigation. It is further recommends that government/NGOs should provide basic legal training for communities in order to enhance their understanding of the laws.
Introduction
Sierra Leone operates a dual system which incorporates customary law which is mainly practiced in the provinces, an area that accounts for about 75% of the population of the country. The breakdown of the rule of law on the eve of the civil conflict is said to be largely responsible for the decade-long war that engulfed the country. Before the war, the judiciary, largely perceived as the temple of justice, was in a dilapidated state, having been seriously compromised by the political elites and their cohorts delivering justice to only the powerful and mighty in society. The majority of Sierra Leonean, the poor and marginalized, lost faith in the institution as an impartial arbiter of justice as they had very limited access to it.
Undue delays continue to be a hallmark of the judicial process, often for avoidable reasons including the failure of witnesses to attend punctually or at all, and failure on the part of law enforcement officers to get defendants to court, as well as lack of preparedness on all sides and failure to trace court files. Witnesses consistently fail to show up in court because there is no unit that coordinates their affairs. Lawyers continue to renege on contractual agreement with their clients, including failing to turn up to court consistently or provide any alternative counsel, failure to prepare adequately for cases, charging additional and unanticipated fees throughout the case, and, in cases for which state funding is provided, such as murder, taking double payment from clients.
The court procedure is also cumbersome and complex for even legal practitioners, let alone lay persons, as most of the laws are now obsolete and therefore does not meet modern-day justice challenges. Most defendants have very little understanding of the law or criminal procedure and how to conduct their own cases because of the complex and cumbersome nature of the court process. As such, they are often left at the mercy of those who administer the law. The lack of an effective information system in the judiciary helps to compound the problem of navigating the court. Moreover, unlike other jurisdictions where there is an office of a public defender, there is no such provision within the justice system in Sierra Leone. And with substantial legal aid wholly inadequate, most defendants, particularly the poor and marginalized, who cannot afford the services of a lawyer often risk being unrepresented even in felonious cases. Defendants are only provided with a lawyer only in cases where the death penalty may be applied. But even with that, the state has been reneging on that obligation also. Consequently, the confidence that was reposed in the judicial system as the temple of justice continues to be at a nadir.
The situation is even worse in the customary courts system which is user-friendly to the majority of Sierra Leoneans in the provinces. Some of the problems include: discrimination against women both in law and practice; discrimination against young men; levying of exorbitant and indiscriminate fines to parties; and the continued existence of illegal courts operated by chiefs especially in the rural areas. Customary law is largely unwritten and uncodified. The result of this is that there are large areas of uncertainty as to the exact customary law, which should apply to a given situation. It is for this reason that with regards to analysis of customary law, broad generalizations are made without recourse to detailed specifics. A by-product of the uncertain nature of customary law is that judgments are highly subjective and susceptible to abuse by those with the power to adjudicate upon it in an arbitrary manner, often to the detriment of the poor and marginalized. As one observer puts it, “customary law is often what the judge happens to remember”.[1] As such, it is considered to be “expensive, unpredictable and open to bribery”.
The illegal adjudication of chiefs is another major problem with customary law. In practice, most customary law cases are dealt with by Chiefs (either Local or Sub Chiefs or Paramount Chiefs), despite the fact that the relevant statute prohibits Chiefs from adjudicating customary law matters. Nevertheless, Chiefs preside over so-called “courts” assisted by Councils of elders and go so far as, issuing verbal summons, imposing fines and imprisoning people. This is manifestly illegal and has the effect of violating fundamental human rights, particularly vulnerable groups such as young men who are often subject to trumped up charges, “to extract a fine, or to teach them lessons in respect for their elders”.
The infrastructure of the local court is also weak. It has been observed that members and officers of Local Courts lack the necessary skill and training to effectively handle cases brought before those Courts. The effect of this is that more often than not, cases are poorly handled thereby leading to injustice and general disillusionment with the court system. In addition proper records are not kept of cases brought before these courts and mostly the decisions or judgments of same are the only salient aspects recorded without an analysis of the reason of such judgments. The evidence of parties and witnesses is often recorded haphazardly. All this undermines the effectiveness of the institution legally mandated to adjudicate upon a body of law that is applicable to a majority of the country’s population.
In recent times, the discrimination by customary law against women has been increasingly highlighted by various human rights groups and institutions. The fact that under customary law, women are restricted in holding an interest in land impacts upon their economic empowerment. Furthermore, inheritance laws which favor men over women means that far fewer women own land or property as compared to their male counterparts. This is particularly hard on widows who may have to fend for the upkeep of their families. Moreover, under succession, male children have more rights of inheritance than their female counterparts and in some customs; female children do not have any right of inheritance. In addition, in the institution of marriage, the woman’s emphasized subservient role places her at a disadvantage. For example customary law recognizes the husband’s right of “chastisement” of his wife, which often takes the form of physical punishment such as beating. Customary laws and practices are challenged for the enjoyment of women’s right, their advancement in the family and contribution to the political, economic and social development in Sierra Leone.
The legal system itself does not help in that whilst s27 of the 1991 constitution prohibits discrimination of all forms, the exception contained in s27 (4) (d), covers the law relating to marriage, divorce and other interest of personal law. The effect of this exception is to uphold the laws applicable throughout Sierra Leone that discriminates against women. Needless to say these discriminatory provisions go against the grain of various international human rights instruments ratified by Sierra Leone, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic Cultural and Social Rights (ICECSR), and most particularly the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
Children are subject to disadvantages under customary law. For example, since there is no minimum age limit under which a girl may be married, there are reported cases of girls as young as 10 being given in marriage, often with the coercion of their parents. This practice is injurious to the development of young girls. Most girls at a young age are pressured to begin child bearing before they have attained psychological maturity which contributes to the high levels of maternal and infant mortality. Furthermore, there is no protection afforded to children who are adopted or fostered under customary law and tradition. There are no formal regulations governing same leading to problems like child abuse and child trafficking.
It is universally agreed that the above anomalies are in urgent need of being addressed if customary law is to become a viable component of Sierra Leone law. Measures, which have been advocated (some admittedly are in the process of implementation), are legislative reforms, ‘the gender laws of 2007’, infrastructural improvements to Local Courts, elimination of discriminatory customs and practices, education on human rights (particularly women’s and children’s rights), and bringing of Sierra Leonean law on the above issues in conformity with internationally acceptable standards.
Aim of the study
The study aims at identifying and comprehending the legal needs of indigent litigants in rural communities and suggests possible solutions. This is looked at in line with the four MDGs themes of PPI interest in order to enhancing effective service delivery on Pro-Poor Integrity (PPI) issues.
Objectives of the Study
- Identify the legal needs of communities and possible intervention
- To assess the level of trust of the justice officials
- To assess the level of community transparency and accountability in the dispensation of justice
- To test the level of consistency, impartial and honesty of judges in the dispensation of justice
- To test the credibility of other court officials in the justice sector
METHODOLOGY
Scope of the Survey
The baseline study on legal needs assessment was conducted in four districts; Bombali, Kenema, Bo and Kono. It was geared towards identifying and comprehending the legal needs and opportunities in the selected chiefdoms in accessing justice related to Pro-Poor Integrity issues.
Survey Instruments
Modules
The questionnaire designed for study was specifically for Households: The household questionnaire was geared toward gaining an understanding of the situation; experiences and challenges that recipients faced in attempting to access justice. The respondents were asked to assess the performance of their justice arbitrators within the context of provision of services, access to relevant information and how their arbitrators treat their cases in term of fairness and impartiality. In addition, attempts were made to gauge the extent of trust of both the customary and English courts. Apart from information about these specific interactions, respondents were further asked to objectively rate justice providers on issues such as accessibility, availability, quality and reliability. Respondents were also asked about the hindrances of the justice providers, for example distance, and means of transportation.
Language
Translation exercises were carried out during the one-day training of data collectors, in an effort to standardize to a certain degree, the syntax of the questionnaires. The data collectors, divided by the various language categories, were asked to work on devising accurate translations of the questions to be used during the enumeration phase in order that the meaning of the questions was not distorted. By instituting a standard translation of the questions into the local dialects, a higher degree of accuracy was achieved during the enumeration phase.
Sampling
A total of 1040 household questionnaires were printed for the survey targeting four districts (Bo, Bombali, Kenema and Kono) and a total of 16 chiefdoms. The table below shows the distribution of questionnaires and the number of responses received.
|
District |
Number of questionnaire administered |
|
Bombalili |
186 |
|
Kono |
193 |
|
Bo |
228 |
|
Kenema |
177 |
|
Total |
784 |
Data Entry, Analysis and Report Writing:
A number of data entry clerks were hired to enter the raw data collected from the field into the system. This exercise took roughly a fort-night and was followed by analysis, using the SPSS software that was designed particularly for this purpose. This was immediately followed by data interpretation into facts and figures which then culminated into this report .
Analysis of the Questionnaire
Table 1: Sex of Respondent interviewed
|
|
Percentage |
|
Male |
63.9 |
|
Female |
36.1 |
|
Total |
100.0 |
Table 1 shows that a total of 63.8% of the respondent interviewed were male while 36.1% were female. 1.4% of the male interviewed were university graduate, 6.9% tertiary, 3.6% basic higher education, 23% secondary, 22.6% primary and 42.4% never went to school. Of the female interviewed, 5.8% were tertiary, 2.5% basic higher, 20.9% secondary, 20.9% primary and 51.4% never went to school. This shows that most of the people that use either the local court or the magistrate court never went to school or had primary education
Figure 1: Age of Respondent
Participants of all ages ranging -18 to 45 and above were interviewed as respondents for this study. Overall, 33.3% were between 35 and 44 years old, 29.8% were between 25 and 34 years and 28.3% were 45 years and above. 8.6% of respondents were 24years and below.
Table 2: Monthly Income of Household
|
|
Over le 1,000,000 |
Over le 5000: less Le 1,000,000 |
Over Le 250,000: less Le 500,000 |
Over Le 100,000: les Le 250,000 |
Below Le 100,000 |
Unemployed |
|
Bombali |
4.0% |
6.8% |
32.8% |
19.2% |
11.3% |
26.0% |
|
Kono |
.0% |
2.6% |
14.3% |
29.1% |
27.0% |
27.0% |
|
Bo |
0.4% |
.4% |
7.6% |
26.7% |
28.0% |
36.9% |
|
Kenema |
5.8% |
11.0% |
28.5% |
21.5% |
27.3% |
5.8% |
|
Total |
2.4% |
4.8% |
19.8% |
24.4% |
23.7% |
24.9% |
Table 2 shows a high level of unemployment and low earning for most of the respondents interviewed. At district level Bo District, in southern Sierra Leone records the highest number of unemployment rate. A total of 2.4% of the respondents earning Le 1,000,000 (USD 234.712)[2] and above and the remaining earn between Le 500,000 (USD 117.356) and below and an alarm 23.7% earn below Le 100,000 (USD 23.4712). Given the cost of justice in both formal and customary systems it is a difficulty for most rural communities to afford the cost of litigation. This therefore, poses a huge challenge to rural communities in terms of accessing justice.
Majority of the respondents are either farmers (subsistent farming) or traders in the private sector. A minimal number of respondents have formal employments. This reflects the earning capacity of the people and how much economic limitation place on them in pursuing a course of action in court proceedings whether in the Magistrate or local courts. Teachers, nurses, uniform personnel, and civil servants etc. are all not paid enough to adequately pay for the real cost of litigation.
Almost all of the respondents interviewed have used either the formal justice system or the local court which practices customary law in the provincials. Of those who have used the court 38.6% were plaintiffs, 38.5% as defendants and 15.2% as witnesses. Other specifications have also fallen under court officers and court observers who are familiar with customs and court proceedings in a particular locality. It is important to note that more women went to court as plaintiffs than defendants and 42.3% were male defendants as opposed to 31.8% female defendants. More women were also in court as witnesses (20.1%).
Figure 2: How far is the court from your house/community?
Figure 2 shows that the 39.6% of the total respondents walk for less than 1km from their house/community to the court of which 64.5% are from Bo District. Most of the respondents (65.6%) interviewed walk to the court. This gives an indication that most of the respondents used the local courts which is community based. In the case of Magistrate courts they are always located in provincial headquarter towns far removed from rural towns outside the provincial headquarter town. This accounts for the 28.0% of respondents who went 5km and above to attend court seating.
Table 3: Means of going to the court
|
|
Vehicle |
Motorcycle |
Canoe |
Bicycle |
On foot |
|
Bombali |
18.9% |
15.1% |
.0% |
3.8% |
62.2% |
|
Kono |
4.7% |
9.9% |
.5% |
4.2% |
80.6% |
|
Bo |
11.8% |
6.1% |
.9% |
2.6% |
78.5% |
|
Kenema |
28.6% |
33.7% |
.6% |
1.1% |
36.0% |
|
Total |
15.5% |
15.4% |
.5% |
3.0% |
65.6% |
Owing to poor road network, respondents walk to the courts outside their communities and others used vehicle and motorbike to the Magistrate courts. There are indications to show that in certain areas transportation is a difficulty. An alarming 65.6% in all four districts were the study took place went to court on foot. This in itself is an impediment to litigation where disputants are constrained to attend court seating on multiple adjourned dates. 44.7%, 28.7% and 24.75% went to Magistrate and High courts by vehicle, motorbikes and on foot respectively. 70.6% of respondents visited local courts on foot. 12.0% and 13.8% went to local courts by vehicle and motorbikes respectively. There is therefore less use of Magistrate and High courts because of it location far removed from rural communities.
Table 4: Legal Education
|
|
Yes |
No |
|
Bombali |
44.6% |
55.4% |
|
Kono |
38.3% |
61.7% |
|
Bo |
33.8% |
66.2% |
|
Kenema |
27.7% |
72.3% |
|
Total |
36.1% |
63.9% |
A good number of respondents did not have legal education in all four districts where the survey was conducted. 63.9% had no legal education. Worthy of note is that in Kenema District 72.3% of respondents had never had any legal education. For those who have had some form of legal training noted largely that training was provided by NGOs working in there communities. About 19.5% are recorded to have received training from government institution.
Table 5: Legal Representation
|
|
Yes |
No |
|
Bomboli |
9.7% |
90.3% |
|
Kono |
28.0% |
72.0% |
|
Bo |
11.8% |
88.2% |
|
Kenema |
32.2% |
67.8% |
|
Total |
19.9% |
80.1% |
80.1% of respondents in all four districts never had legal representation especially in the formal justice system and those that received legal representation 48.1% were very much satisfied, 29.5% satisfied and 22.4% somewhat satisfied. The study indicates that most of the litigants in the Magistrate courts cannot afford the cost of hiring the services of a lawyer to represent them in court. It is also worthy of note that most of the respondents did not have representation since lawyers do not make representation in the local courts. This is one of the reasons for the decrease in the use of Magistrate court; potential litigants in rural communities will always prefer the local court that does not require the services of a lawyer.
On the whole there were more civil matters recorded as compared to criminal cases. It is observed from the study that most of the civil matters went to the local courts and the criminal cases as a matter of fact went to the Magistrate courts where prosecution is the business of the state. This also explains the limitations placed on the local court in terms of the kind of matters it has jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate.
Table: 6 Agreement of Fact
|
|
How much do you agree with following |
|||||
|
|
Absolute don't agree |
At most agree |
Difficult |
At most agree |
absolute agree |
No answer |
|
it was easy for you to find the location of the court at your first visit |
11.9% |
7.7% |
1.7% |
9.4% |
67.6% |
1.7% |
|
it is easy to reach the court using public transport |
18.9% |
5.6% |
4.1% |
6.9% |
62.9% |
1.6% |
|
It is easier to file documents in the court |
20.6% |
3.1% |
29.6% |
16.6% |
17.3% |
12.7% |
|
Court attempts to meet the special needs of people with disabilities |
40.6% |
3.2% |
20.9% |
9.2% |
13.4% |
12.6% |
|
Court productivity (working hours) are enough for hearing cases |
30.1% |
10.5% |
14.4% |
16.8% |
24.1% |
4.1% |
|
Court personnel pay enough attention to your needs |
31.3% |
8.0% |
10.5% |
21.9% |
26.4% |
2.0% |
|
You feel that court personnel treat all people fairly/equally |
37.4% |
5.1% |
18.4% |
15.6% |
21.7% |
1.8% |
|
The Judge demonstrate consistent impartiality and honesty |
35.4% |
4.9% |
12.7% |
19.9% |
25.4% |
1.7% |
|
there are information boards showing samples of court procedures |
67.8% |
3.8% |
8.0% |
7.6% |
7.2% |
5.7% |
|
There are clear guidelines in the courthouse on how to navigate it |
63.1% |
6.2% |
9.5% |
9.1% |
6.6% |
5.5% |
|
Court personnel provides enough information on court procedures |
41.1% |
8.0% |
8.2% |
21.5% |
17.4% |
3.8% |
|
You were fully informed about the official payments |
45.1% |
5.3% |
7.1% |
15.1% |
24.2% |
3.2% |
|
Official charges paid to the court is absolutely reasonable |
49.9% |
7.4% |
13.3% |
14.6% |
12.1% |
2.7% |
|
You can afford a lawyers if needed (for those who don't have) |
65.7% |
3.3% |
8.9% |
5.9% |
11.1% |
5.2% |
|
Court personnel performs its duty diligently without altering rules |
43.7% |
8.4% |
15.9% |
16.7% |
10.5% |
4.9% |
The table above shows how respondent agreed with court procedures and practices. Majority of the respondent agreed that it was easy to find the court at the first visit and also easy to reach using public transport. A large number of the respondent absolute disagreed or find it very difficult to agree with the following statement:
- Court attempts to meet the special needs of people with disabilities
- You were fully informed about the official payments
- there are information boards showing samples of court procedures
- Court personnel performs its duty diligently without altering rules
- Official charges paid to the court is absolutely reasonable
- You can afford a lawyers if needed (for those who don't have)
- There are clear guidelines in the courthouse on how to navigate it
- Court personnel provides enough information on court procedures
- The Judge demonstrate consistent impartiality and honesty
- You feel that court personnel treat all people fairly/equally
Figure 3: Extent of trust of justice official
The question of what trust respondents have in the local court officials, magistrate court officials, chiefdom officials and NGOs in the justice sector, there is strong evidence to show that they have more trust in NGOs (56.9%) in the justice sector when compared to state institutions at local and national levels. This is a major challenge to the formal justice system. Respondents most often would want NGOs’ intervention in settling community disputes as an impartial organization.
Respondents’ opinion sourced on their perceptions on available court facilities show that most of them absolutely disagree with statements relating to improved court facilities or services. But most of the respondents are in agreement that court locations were easy to find.
Table : 7 Cases handle with reasonable time
|
|
Do you think your case was handled within reasonable time |
|||
|
|
Yes |
No |
Don't know |
No answer |
|
Bombali |
60.5% |
33.9% |
2.8% |
2.8% |
|
Kono |
47.1% |
45.0% |
4.2% |
3.7% |
|
Bo |
39.5% |
55.6% |
4.5% |
.4% |
|
Kenema |
39.4% |
58.8% |
.0% |
1.8% |
|
Total |
46.2% |
48.6% |
3.0% |
2.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nearly half (48.6%) of the respondents interviewed answered in the negative that their cases were handled within reasonable time. 46.2% answered that their cases were handled with reasonable period and most of these cases were heard in the local courts that had far less procedures as compared to the magistrate courts.
Figure 4: Information about date, time and place of hearing
Overwhelmingly, respondents (89.9%) interviewed acknowledged receipt of information about date, time, and place of court hearing. Also an encouraging 69.2% answered yes that their case hearing started in time. Those who responded in the negative noted that delay was not realistic and unjustifiable.
Table 8 :Did you feel that the judge treated you with due respect
|
|
Yes |
No |
Don't know |
No answer |
|
Bombali |
83.9% |
15.3% |
.0% |
.7% |
|
Kono |
53.3% |
33.7% |
2.2% |
10.9% |
|
Bo |
41.5% |
52.6% |
5.8% |
.0% |
|
Kenema |
70.9% |
29.1% |
.0% |
.0% |
|
Total |
60.8% |
33.8% |
2.2% |
3.3% |
More than 50% of respondents acknowledged that the judge treated them with due respect. This was also the case with court staff. In both situations above 30% of respondents answered in the negative and this could have significant impact on respondents trust in the court system.
Table 9: Do you think that the judge gave adequate time to your case
|
|
Yes |
No |
Don't know |
No answer |
|
Bombali |
73.7% |
17.5% |
1.5% |
7.3% |
|
Kono |
51.9% |
33.1% |
2.2% |
12.7% |
|
Bo |
43.3% |
50.3% |
6.4% |
.0% |
|
Kenema |
54.8% |
41.1% |
3.4% |
.7% |
|
Total |
55.0% |
36.2% |
3.5% |
5.4% |
55.0% of respondents recognized that the judge/court chairman gave adequate time to their case and 36.2% did not. Importantly so 73.3% of respondent were given the chance to be heard during the hearing and 22.0% of respondents did not have the opportunity to be heard.
Table 10 : Was it possible to comment on the other party' statement
|
|
Yes |
No |
Don't know |
No answer |
|
Bombali |
66.1% |
29.1% |
1.6% |
3.1% |
|
Kono |
48.6% |
38.8% |
2.2% |
10.4% |
|
Bo |
63.7% |
35.1% |
.0% |
1.2% |
|
Kenema |
72.1% |
26.4% |
.7% |
.7% |
|
Total |
61.7% |
33.0% |
1.1% |
4.2% |
Respondents (61.7%) noted that it was possible to comment on the other party’s (plaintiff/defendant) statement.
A total of 52.3% of respondents said hearing took too long to complete and 40.6% noted that it was not. Court hearings are often adjourned because of the number of cases judges/court chairmen seat on.
Table 11: Do Judge’s demonstrate consistency, impartially and honesty
|
|
Yes |
No |
Don't know |
No answer |
|
Bombali |
51.4% |
34.3% |
12.0% |
1.7% |
|
Kono |
51.9% |
36.4% |
5.3% |
6.4% |
|
Bo |
48.6% |
46.8% |
4.2% |
.5% |
|
Kenema |
65.0% |
32.5% |
2.5% |
.0% |
|
Total |
53.7% |
38.1% |
5.9% |
2.2% |
Although a noticeable 38.1% did not subscribe to the judge’s demonstrated consistency, impartiality and honesty, 53.7% answered yes. This is also important where respondents noted that it could impact on the final decision at the end of the trial while others disagree to it having any impact on the final decision at the end of the hearing.
Responses to this question indicate that eventhough most of the respondendents have had court decisions, 34.6% don’t have and a 7.7% are not aware about such procedures whether they should have had decision/order. 53.1% noted that court orders were clear and easy to understand without legal education and 28.1% did not understand. Mostly respondents understood decision or order of the local court (local court speaks the language of the people) which in not the case with magistrate courts.
Most of the respondents (63.3%) declined planning to appeal the decision of the court even where they had lost or decision not in there favour. Appeals were not common with respondents who sought litigation and lost the matter in the magistrate court since respondents interviewed suggested that they cannot afford the cost.
Improve court services
In all four districts perception sourced on improve equipment and other technical support, respondents are in agreement that there need to be such improvements and support to the court. 99.7% answered yes. Respondents believe that improved court infrastructure is necessary for the delivery of services in the justice sector.
Availability of information on the running of the court and improved working condition for court staff is the demand of respondents as could be seen in their response. Majority of respondents want improved working conditions for court staff.
99.7% of respondents want the introduction of mediation specifically for the purpose of fast tracking consideration of cases and avoid unnecessary court delays. Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are far more prefered by most respondents to the courts since it is cost effective and less time consuming when compared to the courts.
Table 12: How would you rate yourself?
|
|
How would you rate yourself |
|||||
|
|
Rich |
Well-off |
Middle class |
Below middle class |
Poor |
No answer |
|
Bombali |
.5% |
6.0% |
42.4% |
20.1% |
29.9% |
1.1% |
|
Kono |
.0% |
1.1% |
33.0% |
33.0% |
30.9% |
2.1% |
|
Bo |
1.8% |
1.8% |
9.0% |
28.8% |
56.8% |
1.8% |
|
Kenema |
.0% |
1.7% |
34.7% |
38.7% |
24.3% |
.6% |
|
% of Total |
.7% |
2.6% |
28.7% |
30.0% |
36.6% |
1.4% |
Majority of the respondents interviewed fall within the range of middle class and poor with low income earnings. This has got considerable effect on the extent to which the can afford justice. About 36.6% have rated themselves as been poor the impact of this is that they are less inclined to pursue matters in the formal justice system from start to finish. In very serious matters poor litigants would prefer a settlement to the combersome court proceedings that is expensive.
The majority of respondents interviewed, particularly in rural communities were either subsistence farmers or traders (especially women). Very few of those interviewed held salaried jobs in the formal sector save for teachers. The monthly income of respondents explains clearly why some of them consider themselves to be poor, their earnings are not enough for the running of the household and this is the general case in rural communities. The impact of this on justice is that very few people can afford to go to court even where they feel the other party has gravely wronged them. 50.5% of respondents were farmers, 20.7% traders and the rest in shared among the other professions.
FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
FINDINGS
The research shows that most of the respondents interviewed during the exercise were illiterates. The average household income of most of the communities where the research was conducted is too low to achieve justice within the current legal system.
Majority of the female litigants went to court as plaintiffs as compared to their male counterparts who mostly went to court as defendants.
Given the fact that local courts are community based litigants had no difficulty locating the court and majority walk to the court. Locating magistrate courts proved to be difficult since litigants in rural communities had to travel to district headquarter towns were magistrate courts are located.
It is however important to note that a good number of respondents do not have any form of legal education and the few that do received it from NGOs conducted trainings.
As a result of the low income of respondents, legal representation in magistrate courts was hard to solicit by litigants in real need. Most respondents found themselves basically putting up their own defense, like cross examining witnesses and responding to questions asked by magistrates that were too technical.
The courts failed to provide communities with information boards showing sample of court procedures as a result of this respondents interviewed were not fully informed about official payments and court rules. It is also indicated that court charges in a good number of cases is exorbitant. However, litigants were duly informed about date, time and place of court hearing.
Majority of the respondents do trust the NGOs in the justice sector but, had distrust in the local court, magistrate and chiefdom officials. In the estimation of respondents, cases were not handled within reasonable period.
To the credit of judges, respondents overwhelmingly acknowledged that judges treated them with respect and that respondents were allowed to comment on the statement of the other party in the matter.
Recommendations
It is recommended that Government provide legal representation for those indigent litigants who cannot afford the cost of hiring lawyer.
Justice arbitrator should have notice boards which display sample of court procedures and official charges.
Harmful time should be given to cases that do required so
Government/NGO should provide free legal education for communities in order to reduce the number of cases that do goes to either the local court or the magistrate court.
Conclusion
The findings have clearly shown the inadequacies in the entire justice system and it is important to note that the 16 chiefdoms covered in four districts is a fair representation of the national picture indicating constraints faced by the poor in accessing justice in Sierra Leone. However, considerable efforts have been made in post war situation to improve service delivery in the justice system but, very little has been achieved given the fact that there are very few magistrate courts in the country as well as inadequate staff. It will interest you to note that an entire district sometimes could be covered by a single magistrate/judge who seats in circuits. The effect of this is that cases take too long to be complete and in most cases suspects are kept in detention awaiting trial on the next seating date of the magistrate/judge in violation of their constitution rights.
The failure of the judiciary to effectively extend it services in rural communities has left the local and kangaroo courts in control with its attendant consequences; levying of excessive fines, arbitrary use of local authority and the oppression of women. Attempts by NGOs working on access to justice project has been laudable but still not enough to bring justice to majority of Sierra Leoneans especially in rural communities.
Poverty and illiteracy is another serious obstacle in all of this. Citizens do not know their basic rights and as a general case, cannot afford the cost of legal representation when in conflict with the law. Capacity building in basic rights issues is a key component in changing the status quo. Additionally, there is the need for more access to justice projects with alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in rural communities.
Appendix
- Questionnaire
- List of Data collector
[1]Peter Albrecht and Mark Malan, Post-Conflict Peacebuilding and National Ownership: Meeting the Challenges of Sierra Leone, KAIPTC and ZIF, February 2006 pp. 16
[2] See
