Against all odds, Sierra Leone's partly traumatised electorate braved a precarious route to democracy - a route made even more arduous by a curious amalgam of chicanery, hollow rhetoric, intimidation, and mindless violence from soldiers and armed nondescript elements. Thousands of voters, undeterred by manifold obstacles placed in their path, came out of their homes in droves and advanced towards designated polling stations in the Western Area, and in the main cities of the Northern, Eastern and Southern provinces. They went to elect a new president and parliament of Sierra Leone.

The elections were held in an atmosphere of doubt, suspicion and argument over their timing, import and impact. The soldiers who had ruled Sierra Leone for four years had long ago lost the confidence of the people who now saw this as their one and only chance to elbow their arrogant and incompetent masters out of power.

As election day approached, tension grew to an unbearable level as speculation mounted that some soldiers were determined to subvert or frustrate the process. Even doubters about the wisdom of holding the elections were by now determined to cast their votes even though they did not believe the elections would secure peace. Everyone wanted the soldiers out except those who benefitted from their rule.

The voters' worst fears were realised when violence preponderated the process in the North, South and East of the country as well Freetown. The disruption was such that voting was extended to a second day under a military decree.

In Freetown soldiers openly threatened voters. Sporadic gun fire could be heard in the day and at night from various directions in the city. But that was not enough to stop people coming out to vote. They resolutely stood their ground, in a show of defiance, to exercise their precious democratic franchise. Their enthusiasm after so many years of electoral inertia - the last genuine elections were held nearly 30 years ago - was unbounded.

Unfortunately for these brave people the reward for their troubles turned out to be an inconclusive result in the presidential race. There was deadlock because none of the presidential candidates achieved the 55% of votes cast which was required for an outright winner and which would have obviated the need for a second ballot. There will now be a run-off in two weeks' time if the parties cannot come to an agreement to form a coalition government. Electors will have to run a real life gauntlet of their tormentors all over again. 

They will decide a winner between Mr Ahmed Tejan Kabbah of the Sierra Leone Peoples Party (SLPP) who came top of the polls with 35.5% and Dr John Karefa Smart of the United National Peoples Party who came second with 21%. Third was Mr Thaimu Bangura of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) with 19%.

The euphoria over these elections was dampened by the cowardly attacks on towns and villages with the aim of disrupting the voting. The RUF had threatened to disrupt them. The attacks were random and haphazard except that they were brutal when they happened. They did not succeed to stop the poll going head.

In Bo polling was suspended on the first day after violent incidents in the afternoon. There were reports of looting in the town. Tension mounted between the town's youths, armed with improvised offensive weapons, and soldiers. Armed attacks on the eve of the poll led to the deaths of a soldier and young child. On polling day, five people were killed. Attacking rebels were pushed out of town by youths after 2 hours of fighting. Only then did the booths reopen.

In Kenema on the morning of the poll, there was sporadic shooting and gunfire in the early hours of the day. Three people were reported to have been killed.

In Freetown, soldiers paraded the streets in intimidatory fashion matched equally by defiant and resolute voters, determined to reach the polls at any cost. A party agent was reported shot dead and several civilians were wounded. When a government minister tried to investigate an earlier shooting incident he was shot at point blank range and was hospitalised. At night soldiers went into a frenzy and sporadic gunfire was heard from various parts of the city notably from the residence of the Chairman at Hill Station, and from the Wilberforce barracks and Kabassa Lodge on Juba Hill. Spent cartridges were found in the courtyard of SLPP leader Kabbah whose house is only 100 yards from the lodge. Some early reports said it was soldiers in celebratory mood and others, that it was in fact soldiers intimidating the electorate. It appears that it was in fact an attempted coup. A curfew was imposed from 10.30 pm to 7 am and extended the next day for security reasons from 8 pm to 6 pm.

Violence was also reported in the North but people turned out in large numbers in Makeni and other towns to vote.

About two weeks earlier, unknown gunmen armed with hand grenades attacked the office of the Interim National Electoral Commission (INEC), the residence of its Chairman James Jonah and that of Tejan Kabbah leader of the SLPP. The leader of the PDP Mr Thaimu Bangura was left with a split lip after soldiers laid assaulted him in broad daylight in the presence of passers-by on his way to the National Consultative Conference that was convened to decide whether the elect-ions should be held on February 26 or be postponed. His wrist watch and vehicle were taken away from him. The vehicle was returned only four days later. Contacted on telephone by the editor of Focus after the incident, Bangura said "They were definitely soldiers. They even threatened to kill me...one of them told them not to do it. They put a rope around my neck and pulled me out of my vehicle and flung me to the ground". No one has been arrested in connection with these incidents.

In the parliamentary elections, the SLPP again came on top with 269,000 (36.1%); followed by the UNPP with 161,618 (21.6%); the PDP with 114,409 (15.3%); the All Peoples Congress (APC) - 42,443 (5.7%) and the National Unity Party (NUP) - 39,280 (5.3%). Parties scoring less that 5% of the votes did not qualify for a parliamentary seat.

In previous elections since 1967, violence was by one party against the others but this time, apart from the usual cross party polemic tantrums, the campaign was good natured and without excesses. ?
 

Editorial

GOOD TRY BUT WAS IT REALLY WORTH THE HASSLE?
The elections were not at all necessary and could have been avoided. We could have used more original methods to settle our civil war and bring all our people into one fold again. We would also have had the luxury of blaming ourselves if it did not work. The elections put a dampener on that. The solution we adopted this time was imposed by others in the international community. So there will be a scapegoat. 

The election was quite an expensive exercise in democracy in both human and financial terms ($11.5 million). It was inconclusive and has led uncertainty that is poised to create new fissures in our society which could take time to repair. It was an unnecessary diversion from the real problems of the civil strife still raging around the country. The personal ego of some people deprived us a chance of forging a united front to deal with our national affairs. So now the electorate have to go through a second ballot without the guarantee that we will get the answers we want? Surely some consensus would have saved the country the further expense and attendant risks. It could even open fresh wounds if we are not careful. It would also have denied the military saboteurs the further chance to harass and intimidate the electorate in furtherance of maintaining their stranglehold on power.

Any democracy that we forge in Sierra Leone which does not encompass the inclusive process of power sharing is doomed to fail now or later. For democracy to take root in Sierra Leone it should be allowed to evolve gradually from the grass roots who are currently the victims of the war. It should not be decreed from above, by soldiers or outsiders. We must move away from the idea that only a full blown Westminster or European type of democracy can save our country. If anything, it contributes to the polarisation of divisions in our communities thus making the unity of our people unattainable.

Just think about it - Have we got an independent judiciary? Have we got an efficient, transparent and professional civil service? Have we got a properly structured police or military organisation? Have we got patriotic and selfless men and women to drive the engines of peace, reconciliation, reconstruction and development once the war has come to an end? These are the minimum conditions that should be in situ for democracy of any kind to flourish. We simply do not have them right now.

In the eyes of the International community we were just a small, inconsequential bellicose nation that required prescriptive help. In other words we were told "if you want help, do as we say or else you are on your own". Our so-called leadership failed to rise to their task to defend this country and today we are paying dearly for the consequences of their default. Sierra Leone's future was being decided not by our government - they are much too indebted to others to be able to exercise the freedom of action they notionally possess - but by so-called desk-bound experts. After the elections they will leave behind a country in tatters with a myriad of old and new problems. 

One must sympathise with the man who emerges as leader of our fractious country after the next ballot. We must all put our shoulders to the wheel to help whomsoever. Now is not the time for calling sour grapes. Let us all - RUF and NPRC and civilians - accept the verdict, once made and however imperfect, just this once for the future unity and progress of Sierra Leone. Another route could spell eternal doom for us all.

DISAPPOINTING TURNOUT BY IN THE CAPITAL
The number of votes cast in Freetown was disappointing. The returns show that 210,000 voted in the nation's Capital which has not really experienced the violence of the war to any large extent. By any standard, it was a low turnout and must rank as a real dampener on exuberant claims of electoral success now being heaped on INEC. Freetown's population which has always hovered around the ? million mark has experienced a dramatic increase since the first wave of displaced persons trundled in, homeless and destitute. Surely the safest and probably most enlightened part of the country ought to have done better than this! 

ELECTIONS SHOW ETHNIC AND REGIONAL DIVISIONS
Voting figures show a voting pattern based on tribal and regional preferences. The SLPP, whose leader Tejan Kabbah is of both Southern and Northern origin, is the undisputed party in the South where it scored a whopping 120,000 of the 142,000 parliamentary votes; and in the East where it also polled 85,000 of the 172,000 votes cast. Since both regions are predominantly populated by Mendes, the party cannot easily avoid being described as Mende-dominated.

In fact the SLPP was not unique and the same is true of other parties. For example, of the remaining 87,000 votes cast in the East, the ethnicity of the leader of the Democratic Centre Party (DCP) Abu Koroma, a Kono, helped the party to poll 30,000 - the highest vote in the Kono District. The second highest number of votes (15,000) was polled by the UNPP for the same reason -its vice presidential candidate Mr Aiah Mbayo is also a Kono.

Kenema district voted almost entirely for the SLPP but Kailahun district, supposedly RUF territory, voted mainly for two parties SLPP and NUP. Of the 51,000 votes cast, 33,000 were for the SLPP while 14,500 voted for the NUP - the party's largest regional vote. The reason - Dr John Karimu its leader hails from the district. Described as the party of the `intellectuals' it polled its second best - 14,500 in the Western Area. The figures also show that the PDP led by a Northerner Thaimu Bangura, which polled 114,500 votes nationally, also gained from the ethnicity of its leader - a Temne. 49,000, its highest regional vote, came from the North and scored 44,000 in the West where there is a significant Northern ethnic component in the population. 

The APC led by a Northerner Eddie Turay remains a Northern party with 18,000 of its 42, 000 votes coming from the North, the rest from the West. The PPP of Dr Abass Bundu another Northerner polled total of 21,000 of which exactly half was from the North, the rest from Freetown. The UNPP which came second overall in the national poll is led by a Northerner Dr Karefa Smart, also a Temne. 94,500 of its 161,600 votes came from the North with 47,000 from the West; it came second in Kono because of the personal vote of its vice presidential candidate who is a Kono.

For whatever it is worth, it is interesting to note that the only consistent performers nation-wide were the worst two parties - the Social Democratic Party (SDP) led by Andrew Lungay an Easterner which polled 5,900 (0.8%) and the National Peoples Party (NPP) of Andrew Turay, a Northerner, with 4,000 (0.5%). The votes for both parties were roughly evenly spread nationally without much of the biases of tribe and region. The SDP polled 1,200 in the South, 1,800 in the East, 1,500 in the North and 1,400 in the West. What it lacked in numbers it made it up in quality. Had that pattern been replicated by especially the big parties, the elections might have proved a model for democracy.

ELECTION FALL OUT
Seven losing parties cried foul even before results were announced, claiming that irregularities had occurred which were so grave as to require scrapping the entire election. They alleged that the big parties issued their supporters with ballot papers about two weeks before the elections; that their own supporters had not been registered even though they made themselves available; that areas where there were no known registered electors had in fact returned a large number of votes, especially in the North; that the `indelible ink' used to mark voters' fingers was not indelible after all.

A SKEWED ELECTORATE
Even before the elections took place the number of registered voters appeared to favour the North. This was not by design but the fact that RUF and soldier-rebels have been more active in the South and East than in the North. Being relatively quiet, the North was able to generate more safe havens in which potential electors were more readily accessible. The net result is that the votes could have been skewed in the direction of one particular region. 98% of eligible voters were said to have been registered in the North, while less that 30% were registered in the South and the East respectively.

A CATALOGUE OF CONSPIRACIES TO SABOTAGE THE POLLS
Focus received a two-page memorandum of events before and after the elections, for which we are grateful to its anonymous author. Being so far away from the scene of these elections, nothing we write can truly capture the atmosphere in which they were held. Titled "The Election Experience or The Fight For Power" this was how it saw those events:

(1) The beginning? The January 16 coup - Strasser overthrown, Bio takes over and becomes Brigadier-General overnight. 
(2) The new Head of State and leader of the reformed NPRC declares himself available to talk peace with RUF rebels. 
(3) He begins a tour of Sierra Leone, talking to Paramount Chiefs, explaining his reasons for overthrowing the over ambitious Strasser.
(4) The RUF respond to Bio's offer - they are also willing to talk peace.
(5) The question of peace before elections is raised for the first time. 
(6) Bio is supposedly besieged by pleas for "Peace before elections", everywhere he goes during his nationwide tour. 
(7) The first Peace before elections march in Freetown organised by the Department of Youth and Sport is held. 
(8) During this period Bio and Co. repeatedly affirm their commitment to the ongoing democratic process. 
(9) Contact is made with the RUF rebels and the famous Bio-Sankoh radio conversation is broadcast on national radio and TV. Peace talks are scheduled for 28 February. 
(10) Bintumani revisited - the National Consultative Conference On the Electoral Process is reconvened to consider the question: Should the Elections of February 26 go ahead or not? 
(11) Grenade attack on the houses of Jonah (INEC chairman) at 3 a.m. and Kabbah (SLPP Leader) as well as the offices of INEC two days before the conference. 
(12) Displaced persons from the Clay Factory Camp are brought to Freetown on the promise of food supplies only to be asked to demonstrate for peace before the conference. 
(13) Heavy show of military might on day of consultative conference. Party leader of the PDP is attacked on his way to the conference and beaten up. Women supporters of Elections on February 26 are harassed and beaten up by soldiers. 
(14) The head of the Military Forces Brigadier Joy Turay tells the conference that the army cannot guarantee security on the day of the elections. (Conference ignores pleas of Bio for postponement and endorses elections for February 26.) 
(15) Government delays the signing and passing of certain decrees for the electoral process. 
(16) INEC experiences financial difficulties because of delays at the Bank of Sierra Leone. 
(17) Some youths (or soldiers in mufti) demonstrate for `Peace Before Elections'. 
(18) Peace talks with the RUF are brought forward from February 28 to February 25. 
(19) Brigadier Turay asks for 100 men from each political party to be trained to help with security. The political parties do not bother to send anyone. 
(20) SORUSS helicopter services (owned by Bio's uncle/cousin?) are grounded on 24 February -INEC experiences difficulties in getting election material to the provinces for Paramount Chiefs' election. Later that day further difficulties are encountered when it is discovered that wrong papers have been delivered to various towns. 
(21) Election Day - loud explosions heard throughout the city at 4 a.m. herald the beginning of elections. 
(22) Voting starts in Bo and Kenema only to be disrupted by attacks by so-called RUF rebels who are repelled by the people. Gunshots heard. Calm is restored and voting resumes. 
(23) INEC registrar and coordinator for Freetown West 1, 2 & 3 disappears with the voters registration list for these areas and voting does not star on time. Voting starts in Freetown only to be disrupted by gunshots and the sound of RPGs and bomb blasts. When there is calm, voting continues. 
(24) During the confusion in Freetown unsuccessful attempts are made to plant a ready-filled ballot box at New England polling booth. Also at a polling booth in Hill Station soldiers make off with the ballot boxes and are not seen again. Attempts by unidentified persons to collect ballot boxes from other areas are thwarted. (25) During voting NUP supporter is caught with registration slips purportedly obtained from an INEC worker. 
(26) There is firing of guns and bomb blasts at intervals. 
(27) At 10.25 pm a curfew is declared on voting day from 10.30 pm to 7 am. One party agent is shot dead. Some INEC officials are harassed by soldiers. 
(28) Curfew is extended to commence from 8 pm to 6 am the next day. 
(29) During the first day of curfew, Paul Kamara - Sec of State for Lands and editor of For Di People is shot even though he identifies himself as an SOS. 
(30) Peace talks continue in Abidjan between the NPRC and RUF. They come up with a ten point resolution to which nobody pays much attention. 
(31) NUP leader (John Karimu) cries foul play and tells BBC about ten ballot boxes going missing, only to discover that they had been moved to a safer destination for counting. 
(32) PPP leader (Abass Bundu) also cries foul play and tells BBC about indelible ink not being indelible after all. Also complains about security during the elections. He is gently reminded by INEC Chairman that he had been the first person to shout "go ahead with the elections - security or no security" during the first national consultative conference in August last year. 
(33) Five party leaders sign a protest about irregularities during the elections but most withdraw their petitions later and decide to accept the results. 
(34) RUF and International Alert make last minute attempts to stop publication of results and have elections cancelled, not without the blessing of the big boys. 
(35) Election results are published. Bio goes on national radio to state his government's acceptance of the results and surprises everyone by announcing the date of the run-off between Tejan Kabbah and Karefa Smart. According to Attorney-General Campbell this must be done within 14 days of the announcement of the results in order to be within the law. The question, however, is `Can De La Rue print within this time frame?' INEC states that they were not consulted before this announcement was made. 
(36) Truck loads of soldiers are sent up-country ostensibly for security reasons during the run-off presidential elections. People express their unease at this arrangement. 
(37) In certain areas of Freetown, eg. Collegiate School Road, residents are treated to six hours of random gunfire during the early hours of the morning. No culprits are caught. 
(38) Meanwhile violent attacks continue in the North of the country on innocent civilians by men in army fatigues - rebels or sobels? Those who dared to vote have had their hand caught off and their eyes gouged.

'ATTEMPTED COUP'?

Usually reliable sources have disclosed to Focus that the shooting that broke out in Freetown near the residence of the Head of State, on the night of February 26 - the first day of polling - was in fact an attempted coup against the person of the NPRC Chairman, Brigadier General Julius Maada Bio. Bio overthrew Captain Strasser earlier this year. Eighteen soldiers are reported to have been detained at Pademba Road Prison in Freetown. The same sources say that the detainees were unhappy with Bio for not taking the decisive step to postpone the elections. It would appear that they did not want the elections to take place for the purely selfish reason that they do not wish to have civilians taking charge of government. "They would rather prefer the military to stay in charge for as long was necessary" the source concluded.

Meanwhile there have been no arrests in connection with the point blank shooting of Mr Paul Kamara, editor of For Di People and Secretary of State for Land, Housing and Planning. Kamara who was described as being "in real danger of being crippled from his wounds" by his colleague and Secretary of the Sierra Leone Association of Journalists (SLAJ) Mr Olu Gordon, was recently flown to London for urgent treatment. He said he was shot by military personnel when he went to investigate an incident in which shots were heard, again, on the first night of the recent elections. Focus wishes Mr Kamara a speedy recovery.

FRAGMENTATION OF THE RUF WILL BE A DISASTER
The reported apparent friction in the RUF - described as an invention by RUF spokesman Fayia Musa - should not be treated lightly. Persistent rumours speak of a delegation that recently surfaced in Freetown, claiming to represent the RUF. Then towards the end of January a man in Conakry (Guinea) said that he was the official voice of the RUF. Alimamy Bakarr Sankoh the man who used to be the official voice of the RUF but who has since been disowned by his comrades still continues to sow confusion by maintaining that he remains their chief spokesman. As most people know fragmentation of the armies in Liberia has led to intractable problems for waging peace. In Sierra Leone the only two opposing forces have been the RUF and the Sierra Leone army albeit plus a suspected band of marauders who are without clear identity. Fragmentation whereby the RUF loses its homogeneity could make the process of peace infinitely more difficult to pursue. Those like the editor of this magazine who have met and talked with these people appreciate the urgency for a peace settlement before this break up has a chance to materialise. Peace will became harder to attain if we have to traverse the national and international landscape in search of competing warlords.

INTERNATIONAL ALERT UNDER SIEGE
International Alert - the London-based NGO - which has been working hard at introducing the RUF to the international community was the subject of a disclaimer by an RUF spokesman, following a series of diplomatic fiascos in the Ivorian capital, Abidjan, last December. Mr Alimamy Bakarr Sankoh (no relative to Corporal Foday Sankoh) issued the statement from his base in Accra, Ghana. Dr Adai Sebo, a Ghanaian and IA's special representative with the closest connections with the RUF, was singled out for special mention. Sebo is virtually persona non grata in his native Ghana. The country is a strong ally of the regime in Sierra Leone. Sankoh charged that IA "with mercenary intent has gone on to exploit not only the RUF's legitimate struggle but the Sierra Leonean situation to its own financial advantage". The statement denied that IA had anything to do with the freeing of the Western hostages. It also alleged that "IA's treacherous meddling in the Sierra Leone conflict has brought even greater confusion" and that it "betrayed some members of our delegation on their way to Addis Ababa for an OAU conflict resolution meeting into the hands of Guinean officials who handed them over to the NPRC". The statement concluded: "In the light of the foregoing, we wish to dissociate ourselves completely from the activities of IA inasmuch as it concerns the Sierra Leonean situation. RUF states categorically that IA has not been mandated to speak or act for it in any capacity".

The statement was faxed to, among others, Sierra Leoneans Abroad, c/o Focus on Sierra Leone.

..... RUF WAR COUNCIL HITS BACK
Following Bakarr Sankoh's disclaimer the RUF's War Council issued the following statement (also copied to Focus) re-affirming the mandate of International Alert. The statement, addressed to IA's Secretary General, Dr Kumar Rupersinghe, read thus:

"On behalf of RUF/SL, the War Council and the Public Relations Committee write to express their deepest regret for the embarrassment caused by the letter addressed to you on the above subject. We completely denounce the position taken by Mr Alimamy Sankoh for it is at variance with the decision taken by the war council on 11 September 1995 in a letter addressed to you in the form of a mandate as on the attached. Mr Alimamy Sankoh as a result of changes in assignment and difficulties in communication, has not been in line with recent developments in the RUF. We are very much aware of the leading role played by IA in the let-go of the foreign nationals held by RUF and very much surprised that a member of the RUF can take this position on the so-called hostage issue. It must also be recorded that IA has done quite a job in furthering peace in Sierra Leone. They have gone all out to come into contact with the RUF in spite of the enemy sponsored perception of the international community about us. By way of this message, we wish to make a clear difference between Mr Alimamy Sankoh's personal feelings towards Dr Adai Sebo, and the official RUF/IA relationship which is quite cordial and free of suspicion."

Focus immediately spoke to both parties - to Alimamy Sankoh in Accra (Ghana) who repeated his claims and insisted that he was authorised by the RUF to make the statement; and to the RUF in Danane (Ivory Coast) where the RUF's Foreign Affairs Committee members insisted that he no longer had authority to speak for the organisation or to issue any statements on its behalf.

Bakarr Sankoh's role has been overtaken by events and the official RUF spokesperson is now Mr Fayia Musa who, in the absence of Ibrahim Deen Jalloh, is currently the man who has been heard speaking on radio over the last three months and signing documents emanating from the RUF. Sources in Danane told Focus that Sankoh has been ordered to return to headquarters in RUF territory but that he had defied all orders for him to do so.

.....And just as we were about to go to press ....

RUF SPLIT COMES INTO THE OPEN
Mr Alimamy Bakarr Sankoh a former spokesman of the RUF has confirmed the existence of a breakaway group. Announcing the formation of the Sierra Leone National Democratic League on the BBC's Focus on Africa, Sankoh claimed to have an executive of 14 members of the RUF and an unstated number of combatants. He also claimed his group had supporters in Guinea, Liberia and Freetown. He said they were for democracy and supported the elections that recently took place in Sierra Leone; that they would implore the two leaders Kabbah and Smart, to whom they had written letters, to come together and form a coalition government to avoid a second race. He complained in soccer metaphor that he left because Foday Sankoh was autocratic: "He is the centre-forward, the centre half and the umpire". He was particularly scathing of those foreigners who had intervened to give orders to the RUF. Pressed on this he said the foreigners included International Alert who, he claimed, "control Foday Sankoh" and "the RUF tends to take its orders form them". He said the recent peace talks in Ivory Coast were a farce.

Alimamy Sankoh's defection was presaged in Focus Vol 1 No 9 of August 1995 when we published a telephone interview with him. We commented then thus: "... Sankoh himself is still an unknown quantity. Recent rumours say that he no longer represents the RUF and that he has been disowned by his comrades. But he continues to be foremost in putting the case of the RUF to the media, having contacted this editor on at least three occasions in the last 8 months .... Sankoh told Focus that there is no rift in their camp and that they have their briefs which they were entitled to put forward at the appropriate times. It was, he said, agents of the NPRC who were deliberately trying to misinform the international public".

LETTERS
 
 

Introducing .....

The Sierra Leone Union in Norway has been deeply affected by the civil war at home that has torn our once peaceful nation apart. The Union has contributed both morally and materially towards alleviating its effects.

Sierra Leonean nationals living abroad are, and wish to remain, a natural part of their society at home. We demand the right to participate fully in the political, cultural, social and economic development of our country. Our regular financial and other remittances to our families and friends which go towards sustaining our national economy can no longer be taken for granted. The practice by past administrations to ignore our legitimate rights must be corrected. Ours is one of only very few governments that consistently shows so little interest for the welfare of its citizens abroad, rendering us such appalling service. We are convinced that this policy has been deliberately designed with the sole aim of discouraging us from returning home.

We Sierra Leoneans in Norway therefore demand our right to cast our votes during the present and all future elections in Sierra Leone. The practical aspects of this can be carried out by our embassies and consulates. They continually fail to look after the interest and welfare of their citizens in their respective countries. Why else do they exist if they cannot carry out such simple tasks like these?.

We demand laws to put an end to political discrimination against all Sierra Leoneans living abroad. Give us our votes.

Never again should we welcome soldiers into power
As we are, hopefully, about to enter a new era of civilian rule, allow me to share my thoughts about the nature of military governments with your readers in the hope that they will never again welcome soldiers in power:

(1) They are not elected and, therefore, they do not have a mandate to rule. It is illegal to take power by force, stealth or cajolery.

(2) Being self-appointed, they are accountable to no one but themselves. They do not rule by the will of a sovereign parliament or in consultation with those whom they claim to govern. They only do so in isolated cases where it suits them. They rule by military decrees which can not, in most cases, be challenged in civil courts. Witness the tussle between General Sani Abacha's military dictatorship in Nigeria and civil right organisations and lawyers representing Presidential candidate Chief Mohshood Abiola who remains in prison despite being freed by the Court of Appeal.

(3) They come to power through the power of the gun, overthrowing the government of the day, and then establishing themselves as the new authority. From then onwards they act and behave like a government, arrogating to themselves all the necessary trappings of power: collecting taxes, conducting foreign relations, declaring wars, concluding treaties on our behalf, and borrowing money in our name, etc. They exercise supreme power over us all whether we like it or not. Their ultimate sanction is the threat and in many cases the actual use of the gun against their opponents.

(4) What makes this possible is that these usurpers, under the pretext of national concern, immediately suspend the operations of the national Constitution thus giving themselves a free rein to do as they please.

(5) An unsuspecting population gradually learns to adjust to life under the soldiers and accepts the evolving new order. But soon, civilians discover that there is no recourse against the excesses of their new rulers. Thus another cycle of disillusionment begins, culminating in another military coup. The phenomenon is self-perpetuating and almost predictable.

(6) The new rulers, in turn, quickly become paranoid about conspirators and coup plotters. Trumped up charges and summary, extra judicial killings and executions become weapons in their armoury ... until someone else overthrows them.

I hope the soldiers too will by now have realised their own limitations.

Just for the record

Elections eventually took place with discontentment simmering in the background. Focus always aims to place decisive critical factors within the public domain. One person who was keen that the international community got it right was....

LORD AVEBURY - A CHAMPION FOR SIERRA LEONE

(Contd. from the last edition)

To Stuart Mole, January 4 1996
... said that there was no way that anybody could persuade the authorities to postpone the elections at this stage, because that would require the agreement of all the parties taking part. So it would seem that, as the UN Secretary-General foreshadowed when he was recently in Freetown, the international community is not interested in a free and fair election; all they want to do is to cobble together a bogus process which can be passed off as democratic on outsiders who are not familiar with the conditions in Sierra Leone. I am very surprised that the Commonwealth Secretariat should lend its authority to this charade, and I beg you to reconsider your policy 

...I do not believe that the end of the road had been reached in attempts to secure a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the Freetown government and the armed opposition. On the contrary, I consider that with the right choice of intermediary, it would be possible to get a dialogue going. It is a very serious mistake to proceed with elections, which cannot be a proper test of popular opinion, when a large proportion of the population cannot even be registered.

To Stuart Mole, Office of the Commonwealth Secretary General (Jan 5, 1996)
... Since I spoke to you last, I have been in touch with MSF again, and they tell me that according to the estimates of the UN in Freetown, 30% of the population is inaccessible for the purposes of registration, campaigning, or voting. MSF think the UN underestimate the problem because they never venture out of Freetown, and unless you have reason to question this statement, I think you are bound to agree that the aid agencies, which do work in the countryside, are likely to have a better idea than desk bound officials on the practical difficulties of reaching people. .....So we are talking about an election in which at least 30%, but probably a much higher proportion of the population, is to be disenfranchised! Is this really a process to which the Commonwealth Secretariat wants to put its name?

To Mons Bernard Kouchner, FEPAC, European Parliament (January 6 1996)
... My guess is that the UK Foreign Office, and the Commonwealth Secretariat, are getting nervous about the chorus of voices expressing reservations about the possibility of hold free and fair elections as soon as February 26...... Would it be possible also for a meeting to be held in the European Parliament to discuss the problems which have arisen, and to express a view on the process?

To Baroness Lynda Chalker of Wallassey (Jan 7, 1996)
... I wonder if you could explain why you think an election in which 30-40% of the people, at least, are to be disenfranchised, constitutes a free and fair election? .....You say there is no case for delaying the elections, but this is not true. Even the UN Secretary-General recognised that some people believed that postponement was the best course, when he was in Freetown before Christmas, and now the chiefs in the South East have urged postponement. Just because you happen to be of a different view, that doesn't mean there should be no discussion, though I am not surprised, after the recent behaviour of the government, that you should be following such an authoritarian line.

To Baroness Lynda Chalker of Wallassey (January 9 1996)
...You were reported (Unity Now, January 8,1995) as saying that you came to Sierra Leone to see how far 'the preparations have gone for the elections and what the British Government can contribute to help in returning the country to civilian democratic rule'. You added that you hoped the timetable could be kept, and I know from your last letter that you view with equanimity the disenfranchisement of two out of every five voters. You have now committed yourself to this bogus process so deeply that whatever the weight of evidence that it will be neither free nor fair, you could not possibly back away from it. I wonder, however, whether you talked to any of those who do express reservations.

To Baroness Lynda Chalker of Wallassey (January 26 1996)
...Thank you for seeing me on Thursday to discuss the elections in Sierra Leone...You said that if they wanted, the RUF could take part in the elections. I believe that nominations had to be in yesterday, and in the absence of any agreement between the RUF and the government, they could not have presented candidates, because anybody announcing himself or herself as a supporter of the rebels would be liable to prosecution. The problems now is that the RUF - and perhaps others - may see the elected government as having no legitimacy, because an unquan-tifiable section of the people were not able to vote for their preferred candidates. There would be an analogy with the Muzorewa elections in Zimbabwe/Rhodesia of 1979, which some of us denounced as illegitimate at the time. You will remember that Muzorewa was eclipsed in the following year, when Messrs Nkomo and Mugabe were able to contest in 1980 elections.

To the Editor of Focus on Sierra Leone (January 22, 1996)
...As we said, it is very unlikely that with the prestige of the UN Secretary General, the Commonwealth Secretary-General and the (British) Foreign and Commonwealth Office so heavily invested in these elections, the sponsors would be happy about postponement, assuming that Maada Bio himself would rescind the firm undertaking to proceed which he gave on his assumption of office .....A possible way forward would be for the leaders who are contesting the elections to agree that if a peace formula can be signed between the incoming government and the RUF, a fresh set of elections will be held within three months, or such other period as the parties may agree. There would have to be some flexibility in the arrangements, because presumably the RUF would have to be given time to present their political programme. This idea would have the advantage of giving the RUF an incentive to negotiate seriously, knowing that once a deal was reached, they would have a chance to compete on hustings. It may not be so attractive to the contenders for office in the present elections, but if they are not prepared to make this concession, the danger is that the window of opportunity will be closed after polling day, and whoever is elected will claim that their legitimacy entitles them to withdraw Maada Bio's invitation to the RUF. ?

The United Nations Secretary General Dr Boutros Boutros-Ghali, in his report on Sierra Leone to the Security Council towards the end of last year, described the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) - one of the combatants in the 5 year-old civil war - as insignificant and that the UN would henceforth concentrate its efforts on the democratisation process which led to the recent and yet-to-be finalised elections. That assessment was unfortunate because it failed to recognise some salient points about the conflict.

The threat to carry through the so-called democratisation process without the participation of one of the principal parties to the conflict was incomprehensible. Unless therefore these elections are finite in their consequences, the world's foremost organisation is on the trail of yet another debacle of its own making. Whoever advised the Secretary-General to assume this position, given the present climate of continuing war and suffering in Sierra Leone, might be forgiven if only we were able to roll the clock back. Alas we cannot!

The sorry saga of the Sierra Leone civil war is not as clear cut as the diagnosis of the Secretary General suggested. There is mounting evidence that, in terms of the atrocities that have been committed in this war, neither side - NPRC or RUF - can claim a monopoly of virtuous behaviour. The human rights organisation, Amnesty International, in its 1995 report on Sierra Leone - Human rights abuses in a war against civilians - stated categorically that "The perpetrators of these abuses are serving government soldiers, rebel forces of the RUF and other armed groups which include disaffected soldiers". The UN was therefore misled and more Sierra Leonean lives have been lost since. Many more could be lost.

Sierra Leoneans involved in the peace process are aware that some individuals and big international business organisations are interested more in implementing their own - not Sierra Leone's - agenda for the return of the country to democracy and normality. Why else would the De Beers Corporation be signing a 25 year mining contract, during a most intense phase of the present war, with the NPRC government that has only precarious control over our sovereign national territory and cannot therefore guarantee the security of its subjects? Then in order to make up for this shortcoming, the same government hires South African mercenaries, not for the purpose of helping to end the war but to protect foreign mining interests, in return for the surrender of some of the richest diamondiferous acres of our sovereign national territory.

As if this sell out of our natural resources was not enough, the intervention of the international community as represented by the various organisations currently involved in the peace process has proved to be uncoordinated. Events in the Ivory Coast last December showed that, as regards the Sierra Leone crisis, there is no concerted strategy in the operations of the UN, the OAU and the Commonwealth Secretariats or, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

There has been a calculated attempt to marginalise the role of the OAU in this conflict, partly because of its lack of resources. It should not be allowed. Sierra Leone is a member of the OAU. As the organisation comprising the countries and governments of Africa - unedifying though the behaviour of the majority of them may be - the OAU is naturally the organisation that is best placed to superintend African affairs under the (UN's own) principles of Regionalism. It is notionally the most informed about situations on the ground and should therefore play the leading role in conflict situations like ours. It is the OAU that should then decide, following its finding, whether and at what stage to involve the UN and the other organisations, calling on their resources if need be. True, Sierra Leone is a member of the UN and the Commonwealth. But these organisations are so much more preoccupied with global and semi-global perspectives which are sometimes un-African in value and un-focused in context that they cannot therefore be the ultimate arbiter of what the correct diagnosis of the crisis might be.

The Secretary General of the OAU, Dr Salim Ahmed Salim, in his report to the Central Organ and the Council of Ministers last December, revealed that the OAU had met with the RUF through the good offices of International Alert - an NGO based in London. He also stated that "the OAU had facilitated a meeting between the UN Secretary General's Representative to Sierra Leone, Ambassador Dinka, and the RUF". This was the right way to go about it. All these organisations should complement not oppose the efforts of each other.

It was very sad that the RUF's debut on the international stage last December led to negative signals. But for the steadfastness of their minders - International Alert - there was a real risk of the RUF's forced retreat back into the bush and an intensification of the violence. Personal rivalry between international civil servants to outmanoeuvre each other in order to enhance their Cvs is becoming rampant. It is this unhealthy rivalry that tends to bring such organisations into disrepute.

Last December, the UN itself was pushed aside and marginalised in Bosnia - despite its tremendous success in holding the peace line for months - by European countries which claimed that Bosnia came within the European axis. With America lending its full weight because, as President Bill Clinton said, America's vital interests are involved in the region, they decided to implement a regional solution to this very European problem. Why should the OAU - the regional organ for Africa - be deprived of playing a similar role in the Sierra Leone situation? 

The so-called international community has seen many of its own precepts breached in Sierra Leone. The flames of the civil war continue to be fanned by more imports of arms to both sides from the former Soviet Republics, notably the Ukraine and the West. Land mines have been laid in parts of the country and most recently in Kono, the diamond mining district. The international community's further silence over the hiring of mercenaries in the country - ex British Gurkhas and South African Executive Outcomes soldiers - leaves a lot to be desired. As a citizen of Sierra Leone, one feels constrained to press this point further lest one is accused of being unpatriotic. This is because the NPRC claims that it has to defend the country against rebels, so any one who questions its use of mercenaries is therefore unpatriotic and a rebel collaborator. However, the nature of the contract - the forfeiture of the Sierra Leonean land mass to a group of fortune hunters as payment in kind - and the fact that the war has not been won prove that it is the NPRC that is both deceitful and unpatriotic. The contracts of these nasty people should be terminated now. The UN should enforce its own rules.

The violence of the RUF has been condemned, rightly, by the international community and by Sierra Leoneans themselves. The level of violence in this war was one reason why this editor and others in National Convention for Reconstruction and Development (NCRD) -who paid the expenses of this editor - took the risk to go and talk to them about it. We did not get satisfactory answers to many questions about the RUF's part in the violence - see Focus Vol 2 No 1. But it does not detract from the fact that violence of the most barbaric kind has been similarly perpetrated by renegade, dissident, ill-disciplined and underpaid members of the Sierra Leone Armed Forces (SLAF) only to be greeted with diplomatic silence. Diplomats in Freetown are not saying anything about these events. Why? One almost wishes that Karl Prinz the expelled German ambassador was back in the country. He would no doubt have been on the side of the people. But as he was an irritation for the NPRC and their backers, he was kicked out of the country.

The absence of even-handedness, in apportioning culpability for these atrocities, by the international community - Amnesty International being the sole exception - is losing it the confidence it needs from all sides if it is to play the roles of facilitation and mediation in this conflict. On whose side is the international community, one wonders?

A Round-up of recent events

WEST AFRICA AT WAR
West Africa at War: Anarchy or Peace in Liberia an Sierra Leone? was the title of a conference held in late October 1995 at University College, London. It featured eleven speakers from the academic world, aid organisations and human rights groups who focused upon three central questions: (1) How do we explain the civil conflicts? Are they populist rural revolts, the consequences of weak states, youth reactions against modernity, or simply capital accumulation? (2) What are the links between the two states in the 1990s? why did Taylor fund or support the RUF in its early years? Why is Kromah's ULIMO (K) so active in Southern Sierra Leone? (3) How can these conflicts be resolved? By force of arms, or local-level conflict resolution and confidence building, or set-piece international negotiations?

The speakers included Stephen Riley (Staffordshire University) Paul Richards (from University College, London), Stephen Ellis (from the Netherlands) and David Keen (Oxford). Max Ahmadu Sesay (formerly of Fourah Bay College) was one of a series of Sierra Leone speakers. All were fairly pessimistic about the prospects for peace in the near future. Most talked of the horror and destructiveness of the conflict.

Richards thought the position in Sierra Leone was more opaque than in Liberia. He attacked American Robert Kaplan's general thesis (`The Coming Anarchy') of an economically motivated global anarchy, with loose molecules (like Sierra and Liberia) flying all over the place. In Richards' view, there were real issues in these conflicts. They were not necessarily ethnic or of essential criminality. There was a history of violent appropriation in Sierra Leone and the current expressive dimension of this violence was really a masquerade. The war is an end in itself and self-sustaining. Keen, for example, gave a view of the war as a business, echoing Robert Kaplan's pessimistic thesis. He had personally talked to displaced victims. The boundaries between war and crime were unclear in Sierra Leone. It was a disaster to send undertrained and underpaid recruits to a diamond rich area.

International Alert showed their now famous video recordings of Foday Sankoh with the rest of the RUF and the western hostages in the bush, while Tessa Kodeczka of Amnesty International talked of the human rights abuses in a war against civilians. David Lord of Conciliation Resources outlined their activities in rural Sierra Leone where confidence-building was truly needed. The international press (BBC, ITN and newspapers) were well represented and several journalists spoke of the problems of "covering" the war. A more optimistic tone was taken by James Oporia-Ekwaro of Christian Aid who pointed to the activities of their partners in Freetown who were working for peace and reconstruction. In rounding up the discussion Stephen Riley drew attention to the issue of post war reconstruction under three key objectives, namely democratisation, ie problem of legitimacy if RUF do not participate or are in fact included; demobilisation of armies, societies and age-groups, community and individuals; social consequences, child soldiers, psychological costs, etc; and development - what does it mean post conflict? A reconstituted state perhaps but heavily indebted or the alternative of a sovereign void with contested sovereignty leading to an ineffective state?

A further conference on the issues is to be held in early July 1996.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN DAKAR
A workshop on conflict resolution was held in Dakar Senegal on 4 - 8 December 1995. Delegates came from Sierra Leone, Cameroon, Ghana, Liberia and Togo. The delegates from Sierra Leone included Daisy Bonah, Victor Reider, Secretary General of the National Coordinating Committee for Peace (NCCP), Foday Fornah (NCCP) and Davidson Kouyateh (NCCP and Sierra Leone Teachers Union). Mr Ambrose Ganda, editor of Focus also attended the seminar. A declaration was adopted by the participants at the end of the workshop. The seminar was run by International Alert under the direction of Professor Ed Garcia in collaboration with the Goree Institute of Senegal and CODESRIA. Funding was provided by the European Union.

ASLGR FUND-RAISING
ASLGR - the Association of Sierra Leone Gradates of the former Soviet Republics - the rounded off its one month campaign of awareness and fund-rasing with a public meeting at the Conway Hall in Central London on January 17. The meeting was Chaired by Columba Blango, the Chairman of ASLGR. Speakers included Derek Partridge, former British High Commissioner to Sierra Leone on the International Community; David Keen from Oxford on the effects of the violence of the war on ordinary civilians; and Dr Mary Kaikai on the effects of the war on women and children; and Ambrose Ganda who spoke about the genesis of the war in Sierra Leone. A session of questions and answers followed.

During the month of December, members of ASLGR in cooperation with Oxfam collected funds in the streets of London for the benefit of children affected by war. A cheque for ?6,000 was recently presented at Southwark Town Hall by Dr Blango and Dr Mohammed Coker to Mr Alo Donnelly of Universal Concern in the presence of the leader of Southwark Council who deputised for the Mayor. Also present was Mr Derek Partridge, who is a local councillor of the borough.

SIERRA LEONEANS MEET IN HAMBURG
The Sierra Leone Association in Hamburg (SLAH) hosted a most successful meeting on 24 February to discuss various issues concerning Sierra Leone. Speakers at the conference included the Sierra Leone Ambassador to Germany Dr A Macauley; Dr R Trede, honorary Consul-General of Sierra Leone in Hamburg; Mr A Ganda, Focus on Sierra Leone; Dr C Blango of ASLGR, and others. Nearly 120 Sierra Leonean and German nationals from Hamburg and other German cities attended. The meeting was chaired by Dr C Webber. A keynote speech was given by Dr J D Mondeh, President of the Federal Council of Sierra Leone Unions in Germany (FCSLUG). The President of SLAH Mr Bah and his assistant Mr J Tucker entertained visitors lavishly.

SIERRA LEONEANS MEET IN LONDON
Nearly 85 Sierra Leoneans met on Sunday 25 February to discuss the crisis in the country. They agreed unanimously to form an Association of Sierra Leoneans Abroad. This move which, all agreed, has been long in coming will afford Sierra Leoneans in the diaspora a forum for discussion and exchange of ideas and information. It will serve as a focal point for all Sierra Leoneans living abroad and, through mutual help and cooperation, provide or render such services as may be required by its members and the community it represents. It will serve as a channel for Sierra Leoneans abroad who wish to contribute to national programmes for the political, social, cultural and economic development of the country. All Sierra Leoneans, friends of Sierra Leone and Sierra Leonean organisation would be entitled to join.

Those attending were particularly curious to know the identity of the people who convened the meeting. They were: Martin Tarawalli; Dauda `Didi' Tarawalli; Moijueh Kaikai; Idrisa Bangura; Harold Saffa; and Kalilu Mustapha. They were warmly congratulated for taking this initiative and mandated to call a further meeting to finalise the setting of the organisation. The meeting was chaired by Dr Kabineh Koroma.

The organisers would like to inform all Sierra Leoneans that the next meeting will take place on Sunday 31 March at the Central Club, 16-22 Great Russell Street, London WC1 at 1.30 pm prompt. The hall is paid for by hour and 3 hours has been booked. The terms of reference for the new Organisation will be presented.

The last three editions of Focus have omitted accounts of the violence in the last 5 months. It is not as if the violence has been any less than before only that technical problems and the lack of space - this being a periodical - made it impossible to bring you these accounts. Below we present a synopsis of some of the main incidents and events during this period. More recently, while all eyes have been focused on the General Elections, violence has assumed more macabre characteristics. Victims have been decapitated, mutilated, and eviscerated. Amputees are to be seen in most of the country's hospitals in the provinces. Lately they have not been caused by dreaded land mines but peripatetic gangs of armed militia men hellbent on terrorising innocent civilians.

August

*** Gondama displaced persons camp is attacked again. Nigerian troops and Kamajoh's put up a stiff and effective resistance. Main attack was on Magbema about 4 miles from Gondama.

*** In Moyamba several civilians were reported killed and houses destroyed. Among those tortured and killed was the wife of the CARE employee while their 9 year old son was abducted. Rest of the victim's family were herded into their residence and set alight. A pitched battle was reported at the bridge near late former President Siaka Stevens compound. Rebels withdraw afterwards.

*** Serabu, Yengema, Walihun, Bumpeh, and Gondamah in Bumpeh Chiefdom, Bo District are attacked and destroyed. Government claims that in counter attack its troops have destroyed RUF bases in Mattru Jong. The battle lasted over 10 hours. Government later claimed that the towns were now "free zones"

*** 300 reported to be dying of hunger in Kenema, Segbwema and Daru. The rate of death according to Mr Ismail Lansana, Chair of Kailahun District displaced committee is about 30 a day.

*** In Makeni 5,000 demonstrate over pilfering of food meant for them. The UN World Food Programme stores were broken into on August 19 and huge quantity of food disappeared. The town has been affected by outbreaks of cholera as well.

*** In Kono District, 145 people killed when armed men attacked Njaiama and Njala Nimikor on 29 and 30 August. Many houses destroyed. There was burning, killing and looting. People were forced into their houses at gun point and then set alight. Women and suckling babies as well. It started with armed miners on outskirts. Civilians went to Koidu, 16 miles away, to tell their chief who despatched local hunters and youths to check. They are were attacked and some were killed. Allegations that government troops in the town failed to intervene to stop the slaughter. The rebels moved to Njala 6 miles away and repeated same. 98 killed in Njaiama and 47 in Njala. Other sources claimed that the number of deaths was a monumental understatement by government. They say that over 600 people were killed in these attacks. Scores more died weeks later in hospital from their wounds. Local doctor, Dr S Gborie, complained that there were no drugs and equipment to treat the wounded.

*** Kono citizens say it is not RUF but, said Captain Ken Josiah "they used military combat fatigues similar to ours and civilians have no time to differentiate between the two opposing forces".

September

*** 16 soldiers arrested for attempting to steal Le 70 million from safe at Sierra Rutile safe at Mobimbi (South West) using drills and heavy machinery. The area had been evacuated in March when rebels overran the mining area.

*** A count is made of the damage following attacks in Moyamba district. 108 houses were burnt in Moyamba; 35 in Rotifunk; 34 in Bauya. Rebels then withdrew and pitched camp at Mosogbala in the Komboya Chiefdom.

*** Prisoners were reported to be starving to death in the provinces following shortage of food due to the frequent attacks on convoys on routes to provinces Bo, Makeni and Kenema. News is treated with indifference. It is argued that decent and law-abiding citizens were dying of hunger - so why worry about prisoners? (ED. But government has responsibility for them, has it not?)

*** Endowment fund is set up for members of families of over 70 drivers who have died in ambushes across the country. It followed the onslaught at Magbosi Hill (see FSL Vol 1 No 9) when 11 drivers were killed.

*** At least 100 people are reported killed in 3 towns in the South. 50 people locked up in 5 houses in Yengema and set alight; 35 people died when Kpetema was attacked with heavy weapons. 7 government soldiers reported killed; Serabu bears the brunt of the rest of the civilian casualties. Government troops claimed to have repelled the attacks.

*** According to a government announcement, the army launched a massive operation along the main highways to flush them of rebels. Campaign set off from Masiaka on foot with the aim to get as far as Moyamba. Simultaneous campaigns set off as well from Bo with vehicular traffic closed on the highway for 2 weeks. Morale was reported to be high.

*** 3,000 cases of cholera have been reported to Bo government hospital and 80 there have been deaths according to Chairman of the Epidemiological Division of the Endemic Disease Control unit in Bo. A task force of NGO's - MSF, AICF, WHO, Red Cross, and CRS is sent to the area.

*** In Freetown since May, 3,093 cases and 10 deaths have occurred. 6 cases were still in hospital.

*** 25,000 are threatened by cholera in the Kunike, Masingbi, Sanda Chiefdoms in Tonkolili District.

*** In Bonthe food shortages drive inhabitants away and many to take the hazardous journey by boat to Freetown.

*** Moyamba is virtually evacuated after several attacks. Rebels have promised to return. They did two weeks later. They wrote slogans condemning elections as fruitless. Fighters included women and children. They tattooed their victims with scorpions. 

*** 60 displaced people reported to have died of hunger at the Rural Training Institute camp near Kenema since April. In Kenema town nearly 750 have died since June. In June and July 617 had died of starvation. 600 towns and villages have been burnt down in the Eastern province.

*** Government claims it has recaptured Serabu, Kpetema, Walihun, and Moyoru Junction in the Bumpeh chiefdom, Bo District. Serabu and Walihun "were turned into rebel bases" according to a military statement. 50 vehicles are recovered in Serabu that used to belong to Sierromco mines 25 miles away. Government claimed a big victory - 40 more rebels in addition to 17 surrendered claiming that they had been forcefully abducted into the RUF and made to carry looted property to the rebel "training camp at Gambia Oil Mill near Mattru Jong". They claimed that 550 young people including women and children from different parts of the country are being trained at the Gambia oil mill.

*** Hunger kills 60 in Masingbi... most are displaced from Baama Konta, Tongay, and Mondema in the Kenema and Kono districts. 4 attacks since April last year - over 40 homes were burnt down.

October

*** RUF retaliates for recent reverses and launches surprise attack on Mobimbi which they take over briefly. Everything in their path is destroyed including several staff quarters which are set on fire. Government reinforcements arrive. Heavy bombardment heard miles around.

*** Attacks on several villages around Bo. Massacres and mutilations of women and children in Boajibu about 30 miles from Bo. Attackers wielding machetes and cudgels. They took away food items including maize, 50 bags of rice, palm oil and ground nuts. Over 20 victims, mostly machete cases, are brought to Bo hospital. Many have had their arms and fingers chopped off by their assailants.

*** RUF denies they are responsible for atrocities in Bo area. "We are not fighting that area, Not since 11 September" said their chief spokesman Fayia Musa.

November

*** Frequent attacks on Kono are reported. Large influx into the area. Head of Executive Outcomes imposes a dusk to dawn curfew. Claims infiltration of mines by RUF illicit miners. 

*** Paramount Chief Kande Saidu II of Dramaiyia chiefdom, Kambia District says rebels entered chiefdom HQ of Kukuna and caused heavy loss of lives and property. 15 houses destroyed. All the town's shops looted and gutted.

*** Otherwise a fairly quiet month.

December

*** Clashes reported in Moyamba District. Taiama the site of a displaced persons camp is attacked - between 5,000 and 10,000 refugees flee and head towards Bo - 25 miles away - for shelter. The camp was attacked in July. Also attacked were Jagbahun. An RUF commando - Alex Mannah otherwise known as `Baba' is reported killed after a clash with troops in the area.

*** Rebels revisit Njala University College town and campus and destroy most of the infrastructure left behind after previous attacks. 3 female hostels also destroyed as well as Geography and Maths lecture rooms. Electoral commissioners's house is also destroyed. The college has since relocated to Freetown and is operating from the premises of the SLPMB buildings in Cline Town. Mokonde is visited - houses destroyed.

*** At least 40 people were killed by rebels following attacks on several villages in Boya-Rimende Chiefdom in the Port Loko District with raids on the following towns: Kamsundu, Samboy, Refolohun Mabure and Mafinta. Rebels also attacked Batkanu and other villages in Libisigahun Chiefdom, Bombali district. Most houses were burnt down and 11 people died of gunshot wounds.

*** further heavy fighting breaks out on Christmas Eve and on Christmas Day in towns less than five miles outside Bo. Refugees fleeing into the city say they saw scores of bodies of men in uniform.

*** New Years' eve shooting - 2 killed near Bo. Sembehun, Baima, Boajibu and Taiama all come under attack. In Senehun 26 people are killed.

*** A CRS lorry is hijacked on main highway. Its consignment of relief supplies worth $50,000 is removed and lorry is released.

January

*** Large number of displaced from Njala and its environs arrive in Makeni town to escape frequent attacks in the area. Eye witnesses testify to random killings and destruction of property.

*** Njama in Moyamba District is attacked. Kpetema and Ngiehun in Bo District are also attacked and 10 people, shot in the back, are brought to Bo hospital

February

*** Rebels demanding that elections be postponed behead 22 farmers and hack the hands off five other civilians in Bo District.

*** 24 RUF men are reported killed by government troops of the 18th battalion at Nganyahun Buima, 10 miles from Kenema after a 2 hour battle. 10 civilians were killed and many wounded were taken to Kenema hospital.

RUF /NPRC RELATIONS

Chairman of NPRC Brigadier General Maada Bio and RUF leader Corporal Foday Sankoh have held two radio conversations since Bio seized power from Captain Strasser. Space permitting, we will carry parts of their exchange in our next edition. We will also report on the recent peace talks in Abidjan between the NPRC and RUF under the Chairmanship of Dr Amara Essy, the Foreign Minister of Ivory Coast.

PUBLISH -----AND BE DAMNED

And if universally acclaimed free and fair elections were held in Nigeria only for the winner to be detained by the military leader of that country, why do Sierra Leoneans feel that their own soldiers are different and are not contemplating the same thing. What did the so-called observers and the international community do after General Abacha incarcerated the winner Chief Mohshood Abiola who has been left to rot away in jail? After a few condemnatory invectives they packed up their bags and left, didn't they? Needless to say, the military are still in charge in Nigeria with the General at the helm.

They won't give up trying to hold on to power
It is an open secret that while a tiny minority of the NPRC members were prepared, though reluctantly, to go along with the demand to hold elections, the majority including some of the most powerful of them were, and still are, against it. That is one reason why they resorted to, and will continue, underhand tactics aimed at frustrating the next round. That's also why - with due respect to Dr John Karimu and his self-styled `intellectual friends' - they originally decided to form and support their own party - the National Unity Party (NUP). If they meant to leave the stage quietly, why did they found and field a party of their own? What's to stop them creating intolerable conditions for the second-chance expression of the popular democratic will after the NUP's dismal performance in the first round?

Crocodile tears or self-pity?
It was interesting to learn of scenes of emotion and effusive brotherly affection during the encounter between the RUF and NPRC delegations at the recent peace talks in Abidjan. Tears were streaming down everyone's eyes, we are told. Was this out of self pity or were these tears shed for the ten thousand ordinary civilians who have been needlessly wiped out by these two sides? Crocodiles tears, if you ask me, especially as they came out with nothing concrete other than mere pious hopes of better things next time they meet. Admittedly, this was a hopeful start. At least the parties have met but I'd rather they get down to the nitty-gritty of agreeing an immediate cease fire so that ordinary people can start warming up to the difficult task of rebuilding their lives all over again. They can continue to haggle about which one of them occupies State House. They can rest assured that they have nothing to fear from the ordinary village dwellers who have no interest in the politics of power. Just stop the shooting and let them get back to their towns and villages. Is that too much to ask?

Afraid of their own shadows
We all know that, like the RUF, the NPRC have their own fears. The NPRC would want indemnity so that they can avoid giving account. This is not surprising considering the scale of corruption and embezzlement that has taken place within the short spell of time they have been in power. The scandalous sale of Sierra Leone passports to Hong Kong Chinese nationals and the alleged recent signing off of hundreds of naturalisation papers has brought considerable fortune for some of the key men in the NPRC. Siphoning of the countries gem quality diamonds has increased threefold. The human rights abuses that have taken place, even away from the war front in the cities, point to a group of people who have become desperately drunk with power and won't give it up easily. I just hope that there was no collusion between the RUF and NPRC delegation at the recent peace talks in Abidjan to make a deal between themselves whereby ordinary civilians do not count. Any exercise in mutual absolution will not be accepted by the masses. We must watch them closely. I certainly will be.

Our professional soldiers should be acknowledged
There is always the rotten egg in the basket. Since we have only the one army, all our soldiers are in the one basket. Inside there are scores of rotten soldiers. The truth is that not every soldier has benefitted from, or indulged in these corrupt and brutal activities. The majority of our soldiers do their job as professional soldiers do elsewhere. There are thousands of decent soldiers in the Sierra Leone Armed Forces. They, like other citizens, have served their people and country loyally all throughout these years and, especially during this acrimonious war, under difficult circumstances, with the minimum of resources and encouragement from their superiors. They have been brushed aside by their avaricious colleagues whose bad reputation and unprofessional behaviour has, unfortunately, tarnished the image of their institution. They are powerless to redress that situation.

These are the issues that ought to have been debated and addressed before the next democratically elected civilian government takes power in Sierra Leone. The army has been rent from top to bottom. It has been partitioned between the haves and have nots; between the favoured and the not so favoured; and between a rapacious ruling clique and the rank and file underdogs. All point to a volatile prospect for Sierra Leone.

It may be a fait accompli but I will continue to denounce it
I will continue, with almost monotonous regularity, to register my personal disappointment that our politicians and my own trade union and peace group friends at home so readily went along with these elections while hostilities continued, with over two-thirds of their constituents displaced both internally and externally. As a democrat I accept the will of the people expressed during these elections though I would have been more comfortable with a bigger and more evenly spread electorate. I can never understand why the point about an interim government of national unity was dismissed off-hand before the elections but then suddenly became an attractive way for solving the deadlock arising from the indecisive presidential poll. May be someone can explain. I was therefore in favour of a kind of coalition government under the SLPP - they won! - with Mr Tejan Kabbah - he won! - at the helm if only Karefa Smart had not been so obdurate and self-opinionated. He could have saved the electorate further harassment and expense. It equally baffles me - I believe I have said it before - that any political party in Sierra Leone should be eager to inherit a war that is not of its own making. But as I have often said here and elsewhere, the recent events and upheavals point to the need for us Sierra Leoneans, ourselves, to take the bull by the horn in order to arrive at a quick and just solution to this crisis. Now that a partial electorate have spoken even though partially, we should now all join in to make things work by supporting the winner from the next round. And here's hoping that the soldiers do not create, or take advantage of, any uncertainties on the ground to hang on to power!

If I may ask
Can the National Commission for Democracy (NCD) confirm that Sierra Leoneans who voted at the last elections understood fully well that they would be required to return to vote if their candidate did not receive 55% of the votes. Were the sums so explicitly explained to them that they were in no doubt about what to expect? Can NCD truly say that all those less sophisticated voters who chose say the SLPP are quite happy to accept that they did not win even though their presidential candidate came 108,000 votes above its rival? The point I am making is that a new system of voting was introduced into Sierra Leone hurriedly and the objects of the exercise - the ordinary voters - were not given the full implications of its effects. With the horse trading now going on, are we going to have firm and resolute government?

Unwelcome bedfellows
As the NPRC saw their hopes of maintaining a grip on power ebb away, I and others who had argued for the postponement of the elections on condition of the formation of an interim government of national unity found ourselves sharing the same platform with diehards who were just using the argument for postponement only to allow the NPRC to remain in office. I am told that this convinced even those sworn opponents of `election now' to go to the polls if only to spoil the soldiers' plan. We wanted the elections postponed in order to give all parties a chance to participate eventually in an election whose ground rules would have been understood and accepted universally. In the event the election was haphazard and, as was always feared by this paper, people were led to the altar to be sacrificed in the name of democracy. That was criminal!

©