PRESS RELEASES
Society for Democratic Initiatives,Sierra Leone "Repeal Criminal Libel Now!
By
Feb 22, 2008, 01:22

Society for Democratic Initiatives, Sierra Leone (SDI-SL) states its total opposition to the recent criminal action taken against Mr Jonathan Leigh, Editor of the Independent Observer, by Transport and Aviation Minister, Kemoh Sesay. Mr Leigh was arrested following an article stating that the Minister had built two large mansions in the immediate period after being elected into office.

SDI-SL has repeatedly raised its concern regarding the ongoing application of the Criminal and Seditious Libel provisions of the 1965 Public Order Act. These provisions are archaic and essentially used, by government, as a tool to silence journalists and create fear within the media. It was an instrument widely used by the previous administration in notable cases such as that of Paul Kamara, Editor of For di People Newspaper. President Koroma had, in his first month, given assurance that this new government would respect and protect freedom of the press – a fact called into question by this recent development. Democracy itself is dependent on an open society, a society marked by freedom of speech. The media have a decisive role to play in such a society, as a watchdog of government. Any attempts to muzzle them must be viewed as an attack on democracy itself.  Criminal defamation laws, false publication laws & seditious libel laws (‘insult laws’) have been used to suppress criticism of official wrongdoing and corruption, and to stave off public scrutiny.

Such laws undermine the right to freedom of expression which is protected by the Constitution of Sierra Leone and under international law.

Ideally, the legitimate aim of defamation law should be to protect the reputation of an individual or identifiable entity, which has a right to sue and be sued, against injury such as publication which tends to lower his/her esteem or exposes him/her to public ridicule or hatred. Mr Leigh had indeed already printed a retraction on the article concerned. Sufficient options for redress exist within civil law and therefore SDI-SL finds the minister’s resort to the criminal law as unacceptable in a democratic society.

In addition, because the act is criminal under the Public Order Act, such actions are brought on behalf of government officials by the public prosecution’s office. The protection of one’s reputation is essentially a private matter. The State, including the police and public prosecutors ought not to take part in the initiation or prosecution of criminal defamation cases, regardless of the status of the person affected. Using State resources to protect the reputations of public officials amounts to an abuse of public resources, resources which would be better allocated to other aspects of the justice system in Sierra Leone.

A further concern is in regards to the refusal to grant bail, at the first instance, by the Justice of the Peace presiding over the matter. Whilst Mr Leigh was able to secure bail by application to the High Court it was set at an excessively high amount of Le 200 million. The court does indeed hold discretion to grant bail or not. However with such discretion comes responsibility, a responsibility to exercise that discretion on reasonable and logical grounds. SDI-SL is concerned that the decision made in the Jonathan Leigh case was neither logical nor reasonable and disproportionate to the aim of redress the defamations are suppose to pursue.

SDI-SL would like to draw attention to the constitutional protection given to freedom of expression under Article 25, Chapter III of the 1991 Constitution. Such a constitutional protection clearly calls into question the validity of provisions of the 1965 Act. This freedom is also protected in a plethora of international treaties, treaties to which Sierra Leone is a signatory: the Universal Declaration on Human Rights; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Africa Charter on Human Right and Peoples Rights and Johannesburg Declaration on Freedom of Expression and Information.

SDI strongly opposes the usage of defamation laws when they seek to prevent legitimate criticism of public officials or the exposure of official wrongdoing or corruption. Defamation laws should reflect the importance of open debate about matters of public concern and the principle that public figures are required to accept a greater degree of criticism than private citizens; in particular, laws which provide special protection for public figures, such as desacato laws, should be repealed

Therefore SDI would like to call on all civil society and media institutions to join with us in advocating for the repeal of this archaic and restrictive Act.