IN PARLIAMENT Beware! That Chieftaincy Act 2008 To Be Passed By Sierra Leone Parliament Posted by A Y Kallay :aliup88@yahoo.com on Feb 9, 2009, 10:20

Paramount Chieftaincy Administration in Sierra Leone and elsewhere in Africa forms an integral aspect of governance.  Policies and programmes of the Central Government reach the man or woman in the village through the chiefs.  A legacy left behind by the Colonial Administration for smooth governance in the hinterland through the then Kings/Queens and rulers who were renamed Paramount Chiefs after the Protectorate Treaty was signed.

Elections of Paramount Chiefs under the Colonial Administration had surmountable problems.  Rules governing elections of Paramount chiefs were adopted which were then promulgated into law.  Uptill date these laws have stood the test of time.  Statues pertaining to elections of Paramount Chiefs left behind by the Colonial Administration, Cap 60 as amended by Act No. 4 of 1961, recognised any person aspiring to contest a Paramount Chieftaincy election should have hereditary qualification to a previous paramount chief.  He or she must descend from a recognised Paramount Chief.  Emphasis was placed on the customs and usage of the chiefdom in question from one region to the other.  In the Southern and part of the Eastern Region, both male and female candidates properly descended from a recognised Paramount Chief may contest and be elected as paramount chief.  On like the Northern Region and some part of the Eastern Region (Kono District to be precise), female candidates are not eligible to contest, by custom, the paramount chieftaincy election.  For any chiefdom wanting to depart from this custom, permission should be sought from the Governor in council to grant the request for a female candidate to be allowed to contest a paramount chieftaincy election in that region.

After Independence, 27^th April 1961, the government of Dr.Milton Margai passed a bill in the House of Representatives further amending Cap 60 with Act No. 49 of 1961 – known as Petition of Rights.  This Act simply states that the aggrieved party to a chieftaincy election should first seek the consent of the Attorney General before bringing an action to court to challenge the validity of an election of a paramount chief.  This amendment Act set the platform for Governments after Independence to manipulate chieftaincy elections to their whims and caprices.  Government functionaries designed guidelines on the conduct of elections of paramount chiefs stating for instance “matters of Government Policy on the election of Paramount chiefs cannot be put to a vote by the Tribal authorities/Councillors”.  The amended Act No. 49 of 1961 serves as an umbrella to protect all the wrong doings of governments.  Paramount Chiefs were dethroned with the slightest suspicion of not supporting the governments.  Previous governments are said to be on record to crown persons who do not descend from a Recognised Paramount Chief.

The status quo to obtain permission from the Attorney General to seek redress in a court of law if one is not satisfied about the conduct of a paramount chieftaincy election has been declared by the supreme Court recently as no good law, and that it is inconsistent with Section 133 (1) of the 1991 constitution and was therefore null and void.  The ruling was ordered after a declaratory relief was sought by the appellant in the matter N’gadi T.A. Soko Yama and the Attorney General and Minister of Justice (Sc./2005) judgement delivered on the 6^th day of September 2006.

The current APC Government of H.E. Dr. Ernest Bai Koroma, cognisant of the problems that emanate from the guide lines on the conduct and codes of practice, rules and procedures, of electing paramount chiefs in the country, has now laid before Parliament through the Minister of Local Government Dauda Kamara, the bill seeking to promulgate the Chieftaincy Act,2008 .It is the intention of the APC Government to sanitise the inadequacies and problems experienced during chieftaincy elections.

The 1991 constitution establishes the office of Paramount Chief by Customary Law and usage, and it cannot be abolished by legislation.  In pursuance of this provision, parliament has been empowered by the constitution under Section 72(5) to make laws for the qualification, elections, power, function, removal and other matters connected with chieftaincy.  The bill has now been laid in the well of Parliament for it to be debated on.  A date has now been  fixed(12 Feb 2009) and I want to use this medium to examine the bill and see if any contribution outside of parliament will enhance and improve on government’s good intentions to avoid and stop all the bitterness and instability witnessed in paramount chieftaincy elections.

The bill itself is to a great extent a replica of the “Code of Practice for Chiefdom Administration” adopted by the previous government to fill in the vacant seat of Paramount Chiefs.  The Code of Practice contains contentious provisions which were challenged in the past and they are again being brought forward to obtain legitimacy.

I shall attempt to examine some of the provisions in the bill which I consider as obnoxious clauses that Parliamentarians should look at critically and objectively bearing in mind they [the Parliamentarins] are the voice of the people.

The drafters of the bill have been purposeful and have made their point very clear by giving the government functionaries the leverage by law to manipulate elections of chiefs without objections from any party who may be aggrieved of the out come of the elections.  Section 4(3) of the proposed bill states that “the election of a Paramount Chief shall not be invalidated by any irregularity in the revision of the Gazette list used for the election, but it is an offence for any person compiling that list to knowingly take into account an inflated number of tax payers”.  A recent High Court judgement of Sierra Leone Civil Jurisdiction brought in by one Lamin Vongo N’gobeh against Pc Mohamed Kailondo Banja, a declaration was made to the effect that the Paramount chieftaincy election conducted on Friday 17^th January 2003 in Kailahun Luawa Chiefdom, which PC. Mohamed Kailondo Banya was duly elected was found to be fatally irregular, defective and vitiated, and accordingly was and is invalid null and void and of no lawful effects.

 The declaratory relief sought by the plaintiff in the High Court states that the election was conducted without proper and valid list of Chiefdom Councillors as required by law and that the valid list was published a few weeks after the said elections and not before the elections etc.

The judiciary has positioned itself and declared that any irregularity in the councillors lists invalidates a Paramount Chieftaincy election; and now Parliament is being asked to do otherwise?   I submit that the NEC of Christiana Thorpe be given the responsibility to prepare the list of Chiefdom Councillors within laid down procedures as may be expressed therein.

The issue of Chiefdom Councillors voting in a Paramount Chief should be looked at.  The proposed bill prescribes that a Chiefdom Councillor represents every twenty (20) tax payers in the Chiefdom – see Section 4(2) of the proposed bill.  Effectively nineteen (19) taxpayers will be disenfranchised.  They have no voting right and cannot decide on who their chief should be.  That right has been mortgaged to one person who may not vote their choice or conscience.  In this day and age of democracy, the adult suffrage should be allowed to exercise their rights as long as they are tax payers. 

I admit that the existing practice is a legacy we inherited from  the Colonial Masters who might not have wanted to see all the “Natives” turning up to participate and vote their chiefs.  Therefore, Parliament should be seen to be more proactive and stipulates that instead of chiefdom councillors/tribal authorities, taxpayers in the chiefdoms shall be empowered to vote their chiefs.  This will enhance the revenue base in the chiefdoms and the district councils.  Tax payers should vote chiefs as they do for all other elections.  The realisation that as a Tax Payer one is entitled to vote a Paramount Chief, chiefdoms will experience stampede in tax returns.  For now, people in the provinces evade local tax as they do not know why they should pay.  Value has to be added to their local tax.  I call on Parliament to use this occasion to scrap the chiefdom councillors list for the sake of development in their respective constituencies.   This will ensure that every elected chief will reflect the entire will of the chiefdom he/she governs.

Qualification for election as Paramount Chief should have direct descent from a Recognised Paramount Chief.  Qualification should be hereditary e.g. from grand father, father, fathers’ brothers etc.  Descent cannot be from a ruling house, since the house does not rule.  The house is the platform; it is the Paramount Chief from the ruling house that rules.

The Peter Tucker report of the commission to review the constitution of Sierra Leone, 1991, recommends that:

“All aspirants who are direct descendants born in wedlock of recognised and established Paramount Chieftaincy ruling house  in existence at the time of independence in 1961”, should qualify to contest a paramount chieftaincy election.   For that matter Section 8 in it’s entirety be reviewed to reflect the Peter Tucker’s recommendations.

The Peter Tucker’s Report should not be cleared off the table and put in the waste paper basket.  His commission traversed the length and breath of the country to have a feel of the people about chieftaincy issues among others.  The commission’s words “descendants of a recognised and established Paramount Chief Ruling House” are well chosen to reflect the will of the 149 chiefdoms in the country.   The intention of the foregoing definition for qualification will seal all leakages and prevent further incursions by impostors to the domain of chieftaincy.

The Commission’s Report also recommends for certain powers and functions of a Paramount Chief as enshrined in Section 72(5) of the 1991 Constitution.  It   provides that parliament should define the powers and functions of a paramount chief.  Unfortunately the proposed bill is silent on the powers and functions of chiefs.  In a bid to assist Parliamentarians to effectively. contribute meaningfully to produce a beautiful piece of legislation, I reproduce below verbatim the recommendations at Peter Tucker for inclusion in the proposed bill:

(a)         Every Paramount Chief shall supervise the collection of local and other taxes within the area over which he or she has jurisdiction.

(b)        Every Paramount Chief shall maintain order and good government in the area over which he or she exercises jurisdiction.

(c)         Every Paramount Chief shall use his/her best ability to prevent the commission of offences within the area over which he/she exercises jurisdiction.

(d)        Every Paramount Chief is the guardian of the customs tradition of his/her chiefdom. 

(e)         Every Paramount Chief in council shall make bye-laws as may be deemed expedient for promoting the peace, good order and welfare of the people within his/her chiefdom.

I propose the above (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) be included in the bill with the heading: Powers and Functions of the Paramount Chief.

I am surprised that the bill has again provided what has been considered by the Supreme Court ruling as bad law.  Section 29 Part VIII under miscellaneous states that “matters of Government Policy regarding the election of chiefs shall not be contested anywhere by any person”.  The inconsistency of this section with the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone needs to be emphasised here.  The rule of law is supreme and the constitution of the land reigns above all other enactments and statutes.  You see, the Ministry of Local Government cannot be an executive arm of government and at the same time serve as a legislature.  Any government policy in so far as it relates to chieftaincy, I submit shall be in the form of regulations which shall have the blessing of Parliament.

The constitution states that if a person is aggrieved about any thing, he/she is at liberty to seek redress through the courts of law in the land.  Section 29 denies such rights to be exercised by an aggrieved party of a chieftaincy election.

How can one reconcile Section 18(1) and Section 29 of the proposed bill?  I want to urge that the latter section be expunged in its entirety as this will create government interference contrary to Section 7(1) and (2) of the proposed bill.  I think Section 29 is distasteful and should under no circumstance be allowed to appear in the final draft.

I still have to be convinced why the Provincial Secretary shall be the Presiding Officer for every Paramount Chieftaincy elections.  NEC should handle all elections as indeed all public elections as expressed in Section 33 of the 1991 Constitution.  The role of the Provincial Secretary is to be a recipient of the outcome of the result of an election conducted by NEC.  It should be the responsibility of NEC to appoint any person to serve as Returning Officer.  This will go down well for transparency and fairness.  NEC should not be seen to play a supportive role in chieftaincy elections. On the other hand, they should take charge from scratch to finish i.e. supervise and conduct the elections after putting together the voters list.