NEWS > Commentaries Is Local Government Elections In Sierra Leone in Turmoil? Posted by on Feb 3, 2010, 17:32

Customary law in Sierra Leone, like the British Customary law is the basis of the legal system in Sierra Leone as it was in Britain from where the “Fountain of Justice and Principle” was acquired by our forebears, throughout the vast area of the hinterland of this country – Sierra Leone. Paramount Chiefs are the custodians of customary law in their respective chiefdoms, which by some measure of coincidence, quite often, if not always are synonymous and parallel in application throughout the country.

Legislation in whatever form that appears to have the edge or intention to interfere with the role of the Paramount Chiefs in the administrative hierarchy of this country, must in the name of modernization be resisted. The current Chieftaincy Act 2009 therefore is just one way in which even those who have lived by and grown through the system and want to make a name for themselves in response to the President’s performance contract are trying to make unsolicited inroads into Chieftaincy in Sierra Leone by watering down its role in the country, short of abolishing it which the 1991 Constitution, Section 72(1) sought to prevent.

Never in the history of Sierra Leone has eye brows been raised about Local Government elections in the country until now. Currently the Local Government Act preceding the election of Paramount Chiefs has drawn attention to the many inroads made by the Act in elections, which, hitherto had been peaceful and without blemish.

In many Chiefdoms throughout the country, either candidates or electors have registered dissatisfaction about the way the elections were being handled or an out right revolt resulting into court action.  Suddenly, there has been a spate of political interference which has been vociferously denied by the APC National Publicity Secretary.  It may well be that as a party; the APC had no hands in the activities of some of their Ministers who have been reported to have favoured particular candidates.  In the Moyamba District (Kaiyamba chiefdom) for example where the Resident Minister South, actively campaigned for an already popular candidate that lost woefully was a clear protest against his interference.  In another instance, again in the same district at Gbangbatoke, the PMDC leader is reported to have switched his allegiance from his own family ruling house which has ruled the chiefdom for up to 100 (one hundred) years to another ruling house.  What a sad event for the Margai family if the story is anything to go by.

In the Northern Region of the country, in the Koinadugu District and Port Loko District also, there were reports of serious problems. And so also there were problems in Kono and Kailahun Districts.

Even more startling is that of the Minister of Local Government, as was reported, himself, assigned election boxes to candidates who were earlier denied entry at declaration meetings, because they did not represent any discernable Ruling House.  By Section 72(1) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (1991), “The Institution of Chieftaincy as established by customary law and usage …… is hereby guaranteed and preserved” and cannot therefore be circumvented by any other means.  By customary law and usage, “Tribal Authorities” now known as “Chiefdom Councillors”, in every Chiefdom in the country were constituted by elderly land owners within the Chiefdom, who were responsible for at least twenty tax payers in the Chiefdom, cultivating the land and thereby contributing to the economic well being of the people of that chiefdom.  By virtue of such standing in the chiefdom the TA’s were always held to have a reservoir of knowledge about the Chiefdom and its respective rulers to the extent that he can rightly represent the views of all citizens in this corner of the country, in the elections of a new Paramount Chief, whenever that became necessary  to do so.

But contrary to this procedure, entrenched and enshrined in the customary law and usage, for the reasons stated above, the first ever Chieftaincy Act 2009 piloted by the Minister of Local Government has made a very significant inroad, in the process of determining who shall be “Tribal Authorities” now called Councillors to elect Paramount Chiefs in brief the Act states that in addition to 6 (six) Ex-officio members, “The revised list shall include a number of other Chiefdom councillors, each representing every twenty tax payers in the Chiefdom”.  But who are these twenty tax payers one might ask?  They could be just any persons in the Chiefdom who pay tax whether or not they have any knowledge of the Chiefdom’s historical development and conspectus.

The consequences flowing from this are today reflected in the attitudes certain Magistrates sitting in Provincial towns, summoning Paramount Chiefs to appear before them as if the Chiefs are subordinate body to the Magistrate. That, sort of conduct, it has been admitted could not have be contemplated when the Chieftaincy Act was piloted through Parliament – meaning as it were that since Paramount Chiefs are to elected by just anyone representing 20 taxpayers the Magistrate could exercise jurisdiction over the P.C’s functions. 

The Local Government Minister ought to be the second thought to this situation if the Act Piloted by him through Parliament is to reflect what he thought in practice.