NEWS > Commentaries The New Anti Corruption Commission Bill 2008 Versus 1991 Constitution Posted by on Jun 27, 2008, 13:08

The new bill has as its flagship the issue of declaration of assets as provided for in sections 120 to 123 of the Bill.  This, it is argued is in line with president Koroma’s vision that all public officers including himself must declare their assets.  Section 123 in particular creates offences in relation to failing to declare or knowingly making a false declaration, or fails to give information or an explanation when required by the Commission, or challenges the accuracy of such a statement without complaining to the Commission or complains to the Commission in a frivolous, vexatious or groundless complaint to the commission in relation to a declaration or fails without reasonable cause to attend an investigation conducted by the Commission, may be fined twenty million Leones or be imprisoned for one year or both.

President Koroma has promised that he would declare his assets but, the question is does he have to so? Is he under any compulsion to do so?  We are of the view that to demand the declaration of assets by public officials in this country is unconstitutional and consequently unlawful even for the President himself.  He should not be forced to declare his assets.  It must be stated that no where in the world have public officials been forced to declare assets against their will simply because they are public officials and there is an appetite to satisfy by requiring public officials to do so. 

Even in the  developed world and under-developed countries around the world, never have any of these countries forced public officials to disclose their assets regardless of whether they have been accused of wrong doing or not.  The idea that some person in a Commission has the power to pour over your hard earned assets, simply because you happen to be a person who wants to devote time to helping their country, a task that very few in the private sector are prepared to undertake, is an unwarranted invasion of privacy which is not justified in a democratic society. 

Further, the spouse of a public official and his children may be forced to declare their assets simply because they have the “misfortune” of being married to or being the child of a public officer.  Such wanton discrimination of public officials cannot be justified in any democratic society.  It is the case that the spouse of a public official engaged in the private sector with considerable assets, have to declare those assets, despite having nothing personally to do with the public sector?  Bearing in mind that this is a country where people scarcely keep secrets, such a situation poses serious security risks for the innocent hardworking spouse of a pubic official, in a country where the police have proved more than incapable of protecting the citizens of this country on many instances.

It is strange that not many people including the President himself has thought about the implications of having to publicly declare his assets, in a manner that even his close friends and colleague President Yaya Jammeh of Gambia, and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia, George Bush, Gordon Brown or even President Mugabe have never had to do.  The fight against corruption does not have to descend into an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of citizens who have done no wrong apart from volunteering to work in the public service of their country.

In any event declaration of assets is unconstitutional and the Commissioner as legal practitioner of some fifteen years ought to have carried out a proper check to see if the provisions of the hastily drafted bill conflicts with the provisions of the Constitution.  Section 22 of the 1991 constitution provides: “No person except with his own consent shall be subjected to a search of his property or the entry by others on his premises or interference with his correspondence, telephone conversations and telegraphic and electronic Communications, except it is reasonably required in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, town and country planning or the development or utilization of any property in such a manner as to promote the public benefit, or for any government department to carry out work on premises, or for the purpose of protecting the right and freedoms of others, for the purpose of executing judgement of any court or for the purpose of affording special care to women, children and young persons, the aged and the handicapped.”

The fight against corruption does not fall in to any of the above categories and is clearly not reasonably justifiable in a democratic society, particularly in light of section 122 of the bill which gives the Commission the power to further probe into such declarations by “doing all such things as it considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of carrying out its functions” This may in practice lead to interference with correspondence, telephone conversations or electronic communications”.

This is a slippery banana skin which even the President himself would have to be wary of.  The state cannot be seen to intrude in to the private lives of citizens without any just cause.  Most importantly, section 27 of the 1991 constitution provides that: “Subject to the provisions of subsection 4, 5, 7 {which do not apply in this case no law shall make any provision which is discriminatory either of itself or in its effect”.  It is submitted that the provisions of this bill overtly discriminate against those persons working in the public sector to which persons working in the private sector are not similarly subjected to.  This law is discriminatory in itself and ought not to stand.  It is regrettable that the Commissioner as a lawyer has failed to deal with these issues and it makes a mockery of his insistence on the bill that  future commissioners or one with whom he has to compete for the vacancy has to be a legal practitioner of not less than ten years standing. 

Neither the commissioner nor his legal friends have been able to realize that this whole episode of assets declaration is without constitutional legality. Yet this is the plan of the Commission upon which President Koroma put his trust for the future.  There can arguably be no defence after seven months in office for such a dreadful performance.  It is about time the President takes action to salvage what is left of his vision of zero tolerance to corruption in Sierra Leone.

The money could be better spent in beefing up the Sierra Leone Police who after all has maintained and continues to maintain presence in every district in Sierra Leone as opposed to a commission whose presence in the provinces is virtually unheard of.  The CID or the police could be better trained and equipped to handle instances of corruption as the police of various cities in the world do which would yield better dividends.

Lastly, Mr. President, a humble word of advice for you from this press is that we are all in favour of your zero tolerance stance against corruption and you have chosen the Commission and its Commissioner to help you with the task, but  don’t forget that in September 2007, you gave a pledge to this nation to fight against corruption and in July 2012, you would have to give account of your stewardship and what you have achieved in the fight against corruption, which you have said is the flagship of your presidency.  Voters have long memories.  You alone would have to face the music when the time comes.  The Commission or its Commissioner who may be long gone would not be facing the electorate.  You now have to think long and hard as to whether you need to rely on this Commission and its Commissioner in the fight against corruption or whether you should place all your proverbial eggs in the fight against corruption in one basket or find alternatives, Otherwise come judgment day you will have to face the music alone and we would hate to have to say MR PRESIDENT WE TOLD YOU SO.  ACT NOW!