|
From the moment Focus
on Sierra Leone and other protagonists commenced the debate about
creating a Government of National Unity, only as an interim measure, to help
implement a focused peace agenda with greater resolution and commitment, the
reactionary political (dis)order in Sierra Leone instinctively lined up its
so-called learned law people to kill it. Leading the attack predictably was
the robotically programmed Attorney General, Mr. Solomon Berewa.
There were few set debates in Freetown. One which
I followed in reports that were filed at the time, was that between Berewa
and the leader of the National Unity Party, Mr. John Oponjo Benjamin, at
Fourah Bay College, the University of Sierra Leone. Berewa’s arguments were
unconvincing and famously lacking in originality. Benjamin in contrast made
the points that ordinary people were making, with consummate ease. He had
been listening to their discussions in the streets. But it was to no avail.
The minds of the rulers had long since been set against any idea that
appeared to threaten their power base. So it was no change. The Constitution,
they claimed, was a bar to all such suggestions. They even threatened treason
charges against their opponents.
I have been left with one vivid impression of our
intellectuals, in this case the legal luminaries, in Sierra Leone politics.
It is that however subtle and nuanced their overall arguments, when it comes
to the discussion of the bread and butter issues that concern the ordinary
lay person, these so-called men and women of (literally) letters always
betray a complete misunderstanding of the very Constitution which they say
they are defending. They fail to do justice to its purport and intentions.
Their arguments show clearly that they are only reflexively parroting the
prejudices of their profession, such as the contempt in which they hold the
ordinary person who is not a lawyer. I am, however, a lawyer and can spot a
rogue one from the distance.
Some of our politically motivated lawyers have
failed to appreciate the tension between legal principles and political
necessity; or, as America's Thomas Jefferson once put it, between the need
for justice on the one hand and the desire for self-preservation on the
other. In all the arguments that they have paraded about the sanctity of the
Constitution, they habitually miss out the importance of prudence and
statesmanship in the conduct of political affairs. By statesmanship I mean aiming
not merely at constructing political institutions that secure the principles
of the Sierra Leone Constitution, i.e. the state (hence, I suspect, the
protection of their personal power) but also, even crucially, at reinforcing
human elements such as those institutions in our society, which form and
reflect the character of Sierra Leoneans. They include societies’ fears,
human tragedies and sufferings, economic conditions, community wishes,
anxieties and experiences, etc; in short, people’s whole being and existence
as citizens of the State. This is most desirable where, as in our case,
Parliament has become merely a romp, shamelessly pursuing its own interest
and showing scant interest in representing the demands of the wider public
outside.
From my viewpoint, any Constitution that fails to
take into its spirit and intendment these essential particularities of
society is not worth a single British or UN bullet in its defence. I
therefore consider everything that these knee-jerk constitutionalists are saying
as unadulterated intellectual bunkum.
As for my distracters, let them be assured that I
am not arguing against the Constitution. We need it, like every society does,
as the supreme point of reference. Indeed we the protagonists of an interim
government have never suggested that we do away with it or get rid of any of
its vital components. All that we are saying is that it may not contain the
answer to our 30 plus years of instability. Therefore it is by no means our
sole recourse or a panacea for every ill that afflicts our country. It should
not be used as a passport to domination over the rest of society, nor as an
instrument for thwarting society’s attempts at improving the way it is
governed. It does not, and cannot, cover every human issue. It gives broad
guidelines, with occasional specifics, as to what may or may not apply in a
particular situation. It is the reason why some countries do not have a
written Constitution, preferring instead to look to other sources, such as
their legislation, customs, traditions and conventions, as aides to
interpretation. In a democratic society, the function of interpretation is an
exclusive one reserved for the Judiciary. It is not a prerogative left to the
whims of politicians.
I do not wish to embark upon a critical appraisal
of Sierra Leonean legal scholarship because I am not a legal intellectual. I
will let their more learned peers to take them on. But what I do find
remarkable is that for all their learning, these people have failed to raise
their thinking to the levels of intelligence and common sense of the ordinary
Sierra Leonean in the street. At the
risk of sounding patronising, I can tell that ordinary people are not
interested in the politics of this civil war. They are simply hankering after
their personal security, and the safety of the environments and the communities in
which they live and work. They are saying to themselves, almost crying their
hearts out, why don't we get everybody on board to help solve this problem
once and for all? But see now how
these learned law people come up with their crass argument about the
Constitution, as if it is the beginning and end of Sierra Leone! The
Constitution is being prostituted to the point of becoming the refuge of
political scoundrels.
Some of us won't have it!
Still, I find it difficult to imagine that
educated men and women would so quickly write off a system of governance,
albeit experimental in our country’s experience, which we believed would make
it possible for the best men and women to bring their talents to fruition for
the sake and well-being of society. The defeatist argument paraded then was
that it is impossible to create and put together such a process, and the
Constitution will not allow it. But my question is, have they really tried to
create one?
The fact must be recognised that we as a nation
cannot continue with business as usual under the current circumstances.
Co-operation is needed among the leaders of the entire political landscape,
as well as with proven leaders of civic society, to deal with the myriad of
problems facing Sierra Leone. All that we were trying to do, when we first
mooted the idea of an interim arrangement for national unity, was not merely
to alert the country to these problems but also, and even more crucially, to
present an alternative way and means of meeting them headlong.
In this respect let me pose some more questions:
Why should new and fresh ideas be automatically deemed to be anti-democracy,
anti-Constitution, anti-SLPP or pro rebel? Has the Constitution, and by
implication the quest to re-establish democracy in Sierra Leone, suddenly
become a vehicle for stifling popular inspiration, or aspirations? Where in
the Constitution does it say that those Sierra Leoneans, who have no truck
with the present government, should forego their own fundamental right to be
innovative in thought and expression, pursue their happiness and that of the
rest of their own society, as they understand it or see fit? Is there no
middle ground at all in present day so-called democratic Sierra Leone, where
we can create a consensus on basic national goals to ensure that our country
utilises its precious few and scarce human, physical and natural resources to
maximum effect for the benefit of all? Who are these antiquated monoliths
that are so selfishly arresting this small impoverished country's
intellectual development and material progress?
These questions are pertinent for an understanding
of where we are right now and where we might end up eventually; whether
ultimately we find ourselves at each other's throats or are working in unity
with one another to attain national progress, with set goals, within the
shortest possible time. The answer to these and many other questions that
impact on the day to day existence of the average person will not be found in
the Constitution. As far as I can tell, even from this long distance away
from my country, the Constitution has not stopped corruption; it has not
stopped the civil war yet; it has not stopped the RUF doing horrible things
in this country. Even when the trusted Constitution was called in aid to try,
convict and later execute the core of Sierra Leone’s army officers, it did
nothing to solve the crisis that their alleged actions precipitated, which continue
to the present day. It did not stop the rebel invasion of Freetown in 1999 or
prevent the 6 to 7 thousand deaths that occurred It has not forced the CDF or
the RUF to disarm - instead we had to look to an agreement, conceived outside
our Constitution, called Lome, to do that for us! Historically, also, it has
to be said that our Constitution did not stop the NPRC or the AFRC staging
their successful coups against the constitutional and legitimate governments
of the day. Instead it proved to be absolutely powerless against these
aberrant forces. So why these people religiously believe that the
Constitution is the solution to every problem baffles me. I put it down
simply to intellectual dishonesty.
What I am trying to say is twofold:
 first, the issue of resolving the civil
conflict and returning Sierra Leone to durable and sustainable stability, has
long gone past the ego of everybody, including President Tejan Kabbah and
Foday Sankoh, and any political party or grouping in Sierra Leone.
Secondly, it is not simply a case of law or
legal principles. It is also about how we can cultivate, collate and
synthesise the various expressions of public preferences and so create a
harmonious and stable polity. It requires political maturity and a deliberate
fusion of existing as well as traditional and innovative methods.
Some people need to be deprogrammed or, since we are desperate for
quick solutions, deconstructed so that they can begin to see that present day
Sierra Leone is not a normal so-called democratic country yet. Their
pretences are just too painful to bear.
I will end by quoting a piece that appeared in the Zimbabwe Daily
News on 26 June 2000, which advised President Robert Mugabe to heed the words
of his home boy, Professor Stanlake Samkange, the founder of Nyatsime
College. The professor wrote a book Hunhuism
Ubuntuism soon after Zimbabwe's 1980 elections, in which he advocated for
a government of national unity in which all political parties represented in
parliament will participate "so that, with malice towards none
and charity for all, we can all, with dignity, set about rebuilding and
healing the wounds we have inflicted on ourselves".
President Kabbah and his retinue of legal and non-legal
intellectuals, as well as his international minders, will ignore this wise
counsel not only to their detriment but also that of the whole of Sierra
Leone.
©FSL
|
