The Reparations programme, which was launched in January 2009, was supposed to be an element of hope for war victims in Sierra Leone. While it has not been fully actualized, some efforts have been made in restoring dignity to those who particularly suffered during the country’s decade long civil conflict.
Child, amputee photo courtesy keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com
The government of Sierra Leone, through the National Commission for Social Action (NaCSA), the implementing agency for the Reparations Programme, has succeeded in providing financial and health benefits for some victims, in adherence to the government’s responsibility as recommended in the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). This recommendation, rooted in the Lome Peace Agreement of 1999, does not only place the obligation on government to provide institutional support, but to also ensure that victims receive the assistance that will put them back on track.The TRC report, inter alia, recommended for the government of Sierra Leone to acknowledge the suffering of the victims and provide some form of symbolic reparation, and also some tangible ones. In furtherance of these, President Koroma in December 2009 made a public apology to all war victims and in addition, launched a Victims Trust Fund to raise funds needed to support victims’ welfare schemes. While the former can be considered as symbolic reparation in recognition of atrocities suffered by civilian victims, the latter was supposed to be that tangible monetary benefit which should be given to victims. The opportunity for victims to be capacitated once again so that they can fend for themselves depends to a large extent on government’s commitment to implementing the reparations programme.
While the establishment of the Victims’ Trust Fund is a laudable effort, a contribution of only $ 400,000 since 2010 cannot address the pressing needs of 32,000 registered victims. The reparations programme which was to be implemented by NaCSA was meant not only to restore dignity and redress, but to also provide sources of sustenance and livelihood by providing monetary benefits, quality education, health care and other social facilities, all in a bid to assist the victims to rebuild and move on with their lives. Thus, since December 2008, NaCSA started registering victims, placing them into five categories; amputees, sexual assault, severely wounded, orphans and war widows. A little over 32,000 victims who were eventually registered by 2010 were categorized and given different packages according to their prospective needs.
In 2009, victims, including but not limited to, amputees and severely wounded received an initial micro grant of three hundred thousand Leones (Le 300,000), which was about $ 75, and an additional nine hundred and forty thousand Leones (Le 940,000), which is about $220, as a second payment for livelihood grant, meant to provide the basis through which the amputees were expected to move on as they were advised to start up small scale businesses. The initial grant which was given in 2009 was meant to be an entry measure to start making reparation payment from the meager donated amount. Officials in NaCSA intimated that there was not enough funding to make all anticipated reparations payments but that it was important to give the victims the initial micro grant as a way of showing respect or demonstrating their commitments to the process.
Unfortunately, the victims had to wait longer than anticipated as the second payment only came in 2011, close to two years after the initial grant. By all indications, the second payment which was supposed to be an addition to the initial grant might not have served its purpose as it came too late to be a boost to a small grant paid two years ago. The 2011 grants were the final disbursements to the amputees and severely wounded as the Reparations Programme does not have any additional funding to pay grants to amputees. All is not lost, though, as efforts are underway to set up ongoing support programs. This includes a social security allowance to be paid by the National Social Security Insurance Trust (NASSIT).
Also, about 296 sexual assault victims have participated in a 6 months training on sexual violence and other psycho social and skills programs. In addition to the training allowances given to them, a total of $500 was given to each sexual assault victim as a “start up kit.” In addition, trainings will be conducted for another set of 354 victims. It is expected that victims in this category will use knowledge and skills gained during the trainings to capacitate themselves for future challenges. Further, medical treatments have been provided especially for female victims. About 235 victims were provided with fistula operations, with 49 more undergoing other emergency medical operations. Furthermore, medical treatments are provided on an ad-hoc basis for medical conditions necessitated by an act which occurred during the war.
The reparations programme as recommended by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report should not just be seen as a priority for the enhancement and rebuilding of the lives of victims, but also as a means to an end in ensuring continuity for them. The fact that some victims have been relegated to street and doorstep begging for sustenance may not justify failure of the reparations programme, but might be a pointer to how inadequate the programme has been in restoring the dignity of the most affected victims of the war. Numerous reasons may be responsible for this. Chief among them was the hitches in the registration process. Apart from the fact that more victims are still coming forward to be registered, the registration process did not effectively cover communities where victims were resident. The registration process lasted for less than a year, and it was not helped by the fact that some victims were reluctant to register because the programme was not thought to be beneficial. Some of them believed that the programmes did not match the size of efforts required to address their social and economic problems, particularly given the amount of money initially paid to victims. Also, victims of sexual violence were reluctant to register out of fear that they would be stigmatized.
More challenging is the issue of resources. Currently the reparations programme still has to make payments to about 10,000 victims and even those that have received payments have expressed dissatisfaction about the compensation package. Symbolic reparations which were scheduled to be conducted in all 149 chiefdoms still fall short of achieving its overall objectives. Apart from President Koroma’s 2010 public apology to all victims in the country, only 40 chiefdoms have received symbolic reparations in the form of re-burial, purification of sacred or ceremonial sites and construction of monuments.
Prioritizing and monitoring the reparations programme appear to be lacking. While every victim wants his/her needs to be met, it is clear that the resources are not available to address every need. The implementation of the programme was not just to show government’s willingness, but efficiency should have been the driving force. The fact that the victim’s fund has not received projected contributions should not have been allowed to pose a challenge to realizing the desired objective of restoring victims’ dignity. Relying on donations from international community suggests government inability to fulfill its duty of providing reparations for its citizens when needed. Despite its numerous commitments in other areas, reparations for victims of the conflict, after a decade, should form part of government’s priorities.
The fact that the Sierra Leone government failed to provide the seed donation to the Trust Fund may have served as a disincentive to other international organizations to provide the much needed support. The provision of free education and health care services, even though they were not specifically stated as part of the reparations programme, is helpful and may have provided a glimmer of hope to the victims.
NaCSA’s effort in implementing long-term or ongoing reparations should be considered as another laudable effort. However, final payments that were made to victims have been considered as insufficient and may not have satisfied the recommendations of the TRC. It is even likely that the proposed social security will be based on the calculation of the payments which were received by victims. Whatever the mode of calculation is, the framework should be one that will augment the sustenance of victims who might not be able to fend for themselves.
As a long-term effort, the government needs to provide the basic educational and health care services. In line with the ongoing negotiations with NASSIT, it is recommended that immediate actions are taken to provide the social security allowances for those who have already received their final payments. While this will help supplement their livelihood grant, it will further guarantee a payment framework for future payments. The necessity of conducting a future registration and verification processes should not be forgotten.
This will not only give an equal opportunity to all the victims, but will also provide the medium for those who did not have confidence during the initial registration. It is clear that some victims had little or no faith in the reparations programme, and did not make any follow-up checks to confirm their registration. Also, the lack of comprehensive information for those who were sexually abused made the registration program to fall short of reaching out to some women. Another registration might make up for this lost opportunity.
Finally, an effective implementation of the reparations programme may not only help to consolidate peace but will also contribute to preventing the outbreak of another war by providing an opportunity for reconciliation between victims and perpetrators and letting the victims know that the government is providing a source of sustenance to enable them continue with their lives. As NaCSA is considering soliciting and making payment to the final sets of victims, women and children should be given special attention. To date, no special package has been given to orphans, whose parents were either killed during the war or could no longer locate their parents. Some war widows have still not received any form of compensation from the reparations programme.
