IS FREEDOM OF THE PRESS (OR FREDOM OF SPEECH THE DISINFECTANT FOR HOUNDING THE CITIZENRY IN THE NAME OF JOURNALISM? OR, SHOULD WE THANK SIR ALBERT MARGAI FOR THIS LEGACY?

"KILL OR FUR WHO JOMP E DAE''

There is no room for reckless journalism in SALONE:   

  OBEY THE LAW or GO TO JAIL

 Read the very words of President Earnest Bai Koroma

“If you go out there and enquire from the journalists, they’ll tell you that the freedom they are now enjoying has never been enjoyed by them over the years. Go out there and ask for my track record and my track record will tell you what this government stands for in terms of freedom of the press, in terms of even freedom to our political opponents. What is enjoyed now has never been enjoyed before. We are not saying that it’s a free country for journalists, we have the laws, and whatever are the laws we have to comply with them until the laws are changed. We’ll continue to give freedom to the journalists but we’ll also want to urge them to work within the framework of the existing laws.”   

 In the early days of the APC, when people like Hon Eustace King, Dr. Monty Cole, the Former HE to the UK, HE Caleb Aubee, Mr Babatunde Blyden were leaders of the APC Youth League, there was a slogan which went "kill or fur; who joomp e dae"! Now you have heard the President in his own words ''obey the law" or [go to jail]. There is no room for RECKLESS journalism in Salone.

Freedom of the Press does not mean 'freedom to be harassers of the citizens. There is nothing like a "BAD LAW" - the Law is the Law and must be obeyed so long as it is in the Statute Books. Until that law is changed any violation will be frowned upon and breaches will be punishable by the prescribed sanctions even if it means going to jail. No journalist must take the good mindedness of this President for softness. Freedom of the Press or Freedom of speech, is NOT the disinfectant for hounding the citizenry through Tribalistic political naivety or sycophancy with intent to deliberately bring down somebody just by claiming such Press freedom. I listened to the Attorney General's interview a couple of days ago over Starr Radio and his commentary was not dissimilar to what the President echoed yesterday. Perhaps we must not be too critical that Sir Albert left us Sierra Leoneans this LEGASY; every government since Sir Albert's days have kept this Public Order Act (Part 5 in particular ) in the books - WHY?

 I tend to agree with Alhaji Tiejan -Kamara writing infacebook (Sierra Leone Issues)

"The Rwanda genocide as you rightly pointed out is the outcome of bad journalism viz-a-viz to inciting tribal or political hate. We must all work together to prevent that in Sierra Leone. On the issue of the 1965 Public Order Act, I'm of the view that it needs to be reviewed and where possible, make some necessary amendments to meet with the current democratic system of government...."

These are some of the dangers reckless journalism brings and there is no justification for this. 
 
                             *******************

In 2009 I published in my Notes Page in Facebook when this very topic was News as it is today. Everyone has his or her own take on this issue. Readers will recall that even Dr Sylvia Blyden had been dragged to Court under this law, but yet she was amazingly the one person who was strong to challenge its revocation and the late Lawyer Terrance Terry was very vocal and involved in the issue. 
 

We saw Sheku Tarawawalie's stands on this issue then, so it is not something new to us in Sierra Leone.

 

I ask the question again, Why do government after government, since Sir Albert (and Berthan Macauley) got this draconian seditious libel 

Part 5 -Public Order Act on the StatueBooks, up till now?  

WHY do they want to keep this

law? We have had all types of governments - Military and civil governments; one party, two or more parties, de-facto one party, democratic, semi-democratic etc., but WHY is this law still un the books?

 

I tell you for free: it is a vital tool to every government against RECKLESS JOURNALISTS in our country and they MUST be JAILED, yes, JAILED - if their intentions, and focus are only bent on bringing down good citizens or promote tribalism or chaos at any opportunistic times. Enough is enough and the law must be obeyed! Freedom of the Press is not the disinfectant for politically motivate recklessnes in the name journalism. Until this LAW is repealed or amended, the penalties enacted for it's breaches must be firmly applied, even if that means reckless journalists are sent to PADEMBA ROAD or 'ROKUPUR' or any other jailhouse in the country. That is how I see it because I still believe the 'The Law is the Law' and must be obeyed.  LUNTA!

 

 

  

Let me remind you readers briefly of the 2009 position of this issue

 Also, I reproduce  below the former US A Secretary of State -  Mrs Hillary Clinton's - "Press freedom required for good governance"  -Wednesday 12 August 2009. from "Reporters Without Borders (http://ww .rsf.org)"

 

 Please Read on:

 

 

QUOTE

 

The Sierra Leone Public Order Act 1965 - Sheku Tarawalie Widdens the debate by Israel Ojekeh Parper Snr (Notes) on Thursday, 13 August 2009 at 18:45

I still believe the 'The Law is the Law'. Sheku Tarawalie gives us an insider's viewpoint on this issue. However, changes can only be made within the confines of legality, whatever your moral or personal feelings or encounters. I do like his Ghana example, but would Sierra Leoneans behave in such a civil manner to gain the benefits of positive change????/.........READ ON***************
************************************************************************************
Why shouldn’t I support the repeal of the Public Order Act?
- Thursday 13 August 2009.

Opinion
By Sheka Tarawalie, Freetown.

Bad laws are created by bad politicians. And once enacted, bad laws - like a disease - become hard to get rid of. The whole fiasco over the 1965 Public Order Act, with special reference to Part V which criminalizes libel, should be squarely placed at the feet of the Sierra Leone People’s Party. Yes, I mean the SLPP.
But with current happenings (as the Sierra Leone Association of Journalists [SLAJ], under the presidency of my friend Umaro Fofanah, is making things look like), it would appear that the All People’s Congress is a government that must be denigrated and discredited for this bad law.
Today, in Umaro’s view, this government is bad, vis-à-vis the Public Order Act. But this same Umaro, just a few months ago, during World Press Freedom Day, had complimentary words for the APC government on how journalists are enjoying press freedom in Sierra Leone. Speaking at a UNIPSIL-organised programme at Hotel Cabenda, Umaro said a friend from another country had called him to complain that they were merely commemorating the day, while he replied, ‘we are celebrating here in Sierra Leone.’

No one would dispute with Umaro on that. He didn’t say then which country the friend had called from. But I would just imagine it could have come from The Gambia. The Gambia is a stable and progressing country, which a few years ago had to send its sons and daughters to Sierra Leone for tertiary education, but today can boast of one of the strongest economies in the sub-region with infrastructural developments to show for that, including the building of universities that has now cut off the sending of their sons and daughters here for further studies. But in terms of press freedom, there is no comparison with Sierra Leone, as journalists are constantly under suppression in The Gambia (yet, Britain says if we want visas, we need to go through The Gambia). Just a few days ago, six [journalists] were imprisoned in a long line of beatings, disappearances, alleged murders, and ranscakings for journalists and media houses in Banjul.

Journalists in Sierra Leone under the Ernest Koroma government have something to celebrate about, have something to thank God for. It’s almost two years in power now, and we are still to get any situation warranting urgent action from press freedom stakeholders. Apart from a female journalist going beyond the bounds of ethics and decency through ‘suicide bombing’ cartoons and articles and then going into self-imposed hiding when no one was running after her, only to come out and be granted self-bail until she misused the privilege, journalists must be thankful that at least none of their kind has been imprisoned. Even when Jonathan Leigh of Independent Observer fell foul of former Transport Minister Kemoh Sesay and was privately taken to court, an apology was enough to let the errant journalist off the hook. The issue regarding Sitta Turay of the New People and a State House photographer was more of a bar brawl than a political game.
In summary, the Ernest Korma government has no political prisoners, no journalists behind bars. And this is in the face of clear libelous publications that another government would have easily used to jail journalists. Take the case of the New Vision newspaper (a clearly opposition [SLPP] paper) publishing that the President had spent colossal sums of money in traveling abroad, with a succession of front-page lead stories insisting that they had evidence to the effect. Yet, instead of using the 1965 Public Order Act, government went to the Independent Media Commission (IMC), where the New Vision still displayed recalcitrance until they were found guilty. What came out of it was a public apology from its editors and a retraction (which perhaps caused Sorie Fofanah and Sheik Bawoh to run away to open Global Times). 

Government did not go any further, but the President wholeheartedly forgave the erring editors. There’s also the case of Awareness Times which placed horns on the picture of the President and turned another upside down, but was let off; only for the paper to go further and concoct emails claiming to come from Zimbabwe to insult the President, as the IMC found it guilty. Instead of government going to court, it was the paper that ran to the courts.
If we put two years of President Koroma’s APC side-by-side with just the first year of Tejan Kabba’s SLPP in terms of press freedom, the former is a pale and shining shadow under the dark and brutish colossus of the latter. 

On assuming power, the SLPP, with a majority in Parliament, used the House as a court to jail journalists. I was the first victim, with no right to a lawyer, no right of appeal – just for writing about government corruption. The next in line were three editors of the now defunct Expo Times who were sent to Pademba Road for criticising the government’s collaboration with Nigeria’s Sanni Abacha in a gangster way to arrest rebel leader Foday Sankoh at a time when they should have been talking peace. Hilton Fyle of 1-2-3 newspaper was also sent to jail. Not only that, President Kabba made a statement that the judiciary was too lenient with journalists, unleashing a spate of attacks and court actions against journalists. Beyond that, the SLPP government thought the 1965 Public Order Act was not strong enough, was not powerful enough, and then they put together legislation to further stifle the press with stiff criteria and tough penalties. The bill was about to be assented by the President when a coup [by the AFRC] turned the tables in 1997.

But that’s not even the reason why I said at the beginning that the blame for the current fiasco should be ascribed to the SLPP. The fact and plain truth is that the SLPP enacted the 1965 Public Order Act under the leadership of Albert Margai with the primary aim to silence the opposition APC before the 1967 elections. It turned out that the SLPP lost those elections and therefore found themselves afterwards at the receiving end of the very bad law they created. The APC, for obvious reasons, was not keen to change the law. Certainly, this would not be the cup of tea of the shrewd Siaka Stevens. You wouldn’t have expected Momoh to do otherwise. Yet, after a tumultuous period of coups and palace coups, one would have expected the SLPP, after regaining power in 1996, to have cleared and cleaned the sins of their forefathers by repealing the 1965 Public Order Act, even on a campaign promise to do just that . But all they did was to call for more draconian laws. Even those journalists that denounced the junta and supported the re-instatatement of Kabba, on his return, were among the thousands choked at Pademba Road for the crime of collaboration turned treason, of which current Information Minister I.B. Kargbo was sentenced to death. Another journalist was executed along with 23 military officers. Thereafter, through the same Public Order Act or its antecedents, many other journalists, most notably Paul Kamara and even Sorie Fofanah, faced the wrath of the law and its agents under the SLPP.
But this is not to say the APC government (despite having had cause to grudgingly use the Act to take Sylvia Blyden to court because she does not recognize the authority of the IMC - herself being an advocate for the retention of the law), should not reverse the status quo. I am surprised that anyone would even remotely think that I would be against the repeal of this law just because I am Press Secretary to the President. Professionally, I am first and foremost a journalist, and I am old enough to know that governments come and go, positions pass away, but only death takes your profession from you. We shouldn’t say because the SLPP brought this bad law or because they subsequently added injury to insult, as in the case of Harry Yanssaneh who was beaten to death by an SLPP MP, then the APC should not do anything about it.

Here, the remarks of British Deputy Tory (Opposition) Leader William Hague, regarding a ‘bad law’ in Britain, ring a bell: "A Conservative government will give parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote and in government time. This has been our position and it will remain our position... The passage of the Hunting Act revealed that Labour MPs’ respect for the views of minorities only extended to those minorities whose views they could readily agree with. The result was a piece of legislation so deeply prejudiced and so ridiculously unworkable that its existence weakens and discredits the laws of the land... This is a bad law and bad laws should be repealed, not ignored."

 It’s as simple as that. Bad laws must be repealed. As was done with the Public Order Act in Ghana under John Kuffour.
In fact my support for the repeal of this law is not at variance with the President’s campaign promise and his current position. Where I differ or beg to differ with SLAJ on this whole argument of decriminalising libel, is this method of trying to make things look like they must emanate from SLAJ. I don’t know why it has to be a matter pursued through the courts, and why those courts must be hounded by SLAJ, and why the police and the whole government must be drawn into a brawl that should not have been started in the first place. Of course I know it was not Umaro’s administration that took government to court. It was Philip Neville’s. But it was one of the packages of Neville’s regime that was campaigned against for Umaro to take over. We did not know it was going to be used as a tool to besmirch a government which, since Sierra Leone’s Independence, so far stands out as the least repressive, most open, most amiable to journalists – as Umaro himself acknowledged on Press Freedom Day. The SLAJ President cannot feign inaccessibility to President Koroma. On several occasions I arranged that. Umaro’s SLAJ has met with President Koroma, and the Head of State reiterated his promise to review the law. The dialogue had begun.
As a pressure group, SLAJ should have continued the dialogue until they would discover that there was an iota of suspicion that the government was not prepared to honour its words. Then there would have been a need to take the confrontational path. And in trade union activities, once such a decision is taken, the association should be prepared to take the long shot. It would not just be about telling your supporters to black-out the judiciary for a few days, it would not just be about asking members to boycott a single press conference. It would mean a thorough plan, with alternatives, until the goal is achieved. It would mean a concerted and long-drawn action. It would not mean merely declaring to remain dread-locked until further notice. 

Being a students union President is certainly not the same as being the President of SLAJ. In Ghana’s situation, the then President of the Ghana Journalists Association, Gifty Affenyi-Dadzie (a lady), went into dialogue with President Kuffour using the access she had then, and they, together with Parliament, worked in the public interest to decriminalize libel. She sent congratulatory messages to the President for the cooperation. But you don’t just run to the President for cooperation after the police have rebuffed a demonstration whose sole purpose was to soil the reputation of the country in a most unwarranted fashion.

Just a few weeks ago, President Barrack Obama was in Ghana. It should not be a surprise. Article 19, a London-based organisation campaigning for freedom of expression, lauded Ghana thus: "The repeal of [the] criminal libel law puts Ghana at the forefront of African countries when it comes to meeting international standards on free expression.” The United States is the bastion of democratic freedom; Ghana takes the lead in being the first country in Africa to decriminalize libel under the government of John Kuffour in 2001. During the elections, Kuffour had promised just that. Although with all that, the man who championed the bill, ex-Attorney General Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo Addo, could not succeed his President - losing to the opposition’s John Atta Mills. But I’m sure Nana is quite satisfied that his country is riding high in international circles. Sierra Leone should aspire to this.

There’s a very naïve and conservative school of thought holding the view that the Public Order Act should not be reviewed, that libel should not be decriminalized – especially when it has caught Sylvia Blyden. No one should even think of swapping Sylvia’s imprisonment with the repeal of the Public Order Act. Decriminalizing libel does not mean journalists would just be writing anything against members of the public or against public officials. It means journalists would now be challenged through the civil courts, instead of having the police to start looking for you. It means journalists could be fined or get their properties confiscated if found culpable. To me, setting Sylvia free in exchange for repealing the Act would be more of a defeat for her ideologically than making her a press-freedom heroine by sending her to jail.
Let the dialogue begin. Let’s remove this bad law, if we want to be like Ghana. But it does not have to be through confrontation. We have to allow President Koroma, who promised to change the law, to take the lead or be consultatively engaged in the matter; and not push him.

 Just last Friday, the President recommitted himself in a meeting with the IMC that, “We believe in enhancing freedom of the press, and matters regarding the review of certain rules will be addressed,” calling for a dialogue on the Public Order Act, engaging all stakeholders, including journalists, policy makers, and members of the public.
That’s how we’ve got to do it. We need to scrutinize this law in the public interest. Somebody, writing about Westminster, has written that “One of Parliament’s greatest failings in recent years has been its inability to properly scrutinise the legislation brought before it.” So true for the Parliament that passed the notorious Public Order Act in 1965. Let it not be true of our Parliament and our country this century.

In short, I support the decriminalisation of libel (not even ten more trips to China will get me off this position). [BUT] Through dialogue!
(This article was originally published in The Torchlight newspaper, www.thetorchlight.com)
• discuss

—————————————————————-

PRESS FREEDOM & THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT

by Israel Ojekeh Parper Snr (Notes) on Thursday, 13 August 2009.

The wider implications of this issue is highlighted by Mrs. Hillary Clinton’s visit to Africa and "Reporters Without Boarders" commentary. The complications of this issue is worldwide and it's implications are demonstrated by the underlying piece from "PV"................READ ON.....

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

"Press freedom required for good governance"-Hillary Clinton

- Wednesday 12 August 2009.

Reporters Without Borders (http://www.rsf.org)

US secretary of state Hillary Clinton should stress the need to respect press freedom during her talks with government officials on the seven-nation African tour she has just begun in Kenya, Reporters Without Borders said today.
“We welcome the US secretary of state’s decision to accord Africa a tour of this length,” Reporters Without Borders said. “We share her interest in combating corruption and we would like to stress that this requires defending press freedom. A journalist who exposes kickbacks, fraud or embezzlement in Africa is immediately harassed, arrested or even jailed.”
The press freedom organisation added: “This tour offers the United States a chance to send a strong signal to African leaders by insisting that they pledge to respect basic freedoms. It also offers a chance to send a message of encouragement to their citizens, who are often punished if they dare to express their views freely. It is regrettable that certain countries are not on the programme, such as Gambia, which has the worst press freedom situation in West Africa.”
On the first day of the Nairobi leg of her tour yesterday, Clinton urged African states to combat corruption and crime and to promote “good governance.” Before leaving the Kenyan capital, Reporters Without Borders thinks she should ensure that the authorities are deploying all possible resources to solve the murder of freelance journalist Francis Kainda Nyaruri, whose decapitated body was found in a forest in the southwest of the country on 29 January.
Shortly before his death, Nyaruri said he had been threatened by police officers whose behaviour he had criticised. “Only the arrest of both the perpetrators and instigators will serve to reassure Kenya’s journalists, who have been deeply traumatised by this appalling murder,” Reporters Without Borders said.
While in Nairobi, Clinton is also due to meet Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, the president of Somalia’s transitional government, which has been weakened by the Islamist militia Al-Shabaab’s offensive. With 14 journalists killed since the start of 2007, Somalia is the deadliest country in Africa for the media and the US government should encourage the authorities to protect journalists.
While the arbitrary arrests, kidnappings and murders of journalists in Somalia are already extremely worrying, Clinton should bear mind that an Al-Shabaab victory over the government forces would have a dramatic impact on basic freedoms and especially freedom of the press.
After South Africa and Angola, Clinton will have an opportunity in Kinshasa to share her concern with President Joseph Kabila about the impunity enjoyed by those who killed Radio Okapi journalists Serge Maheshe and Didace Namujimbo in Bukavu (the capital of the eastern province of Sud-Kivu).
The trial of those who allegedly gunned down Maheshe on 13 June 2007 was a complete fiasco that has been denounced by many local and international human rights groups. The military court in charge of investigating the murder of Namujimbo, who was shot in the head on 21 November 2008, has yet to hold its first hearing.
Clinton’s talks in Nigeria with President Musa Yar’Adua will undoubtedly touch on the recent deadly clashes between the security forces and Islamist militants in the north of the country as well as Nigeria’s oil-fuelled powerhouse economy. She should also remind him that journalism is a dangerous profession in Nigeria.
Journalists are constantly the victims of street violence, heavy-handed raids and beatings by the police and the State Security Service, and arbitrary arrest by provincial governors, who often abuse their authority. After Gambia, Nigeria is the West African country that shows least respect for press freedom, according to the 2008 Reporters Without Borders press freedom index.
While on her way from Liberia to Cape Verde, the former First Lady would ideally detour via Banjul in order to tell Gambian President Yahya Jammeh how much his behaviour appals human rights activists and pro-democracy campaigners.
Seven journalists who are leading members of the Gambia Press Union are currently being harassed and prosecuted for criticising Jammeh. At the same time, he has been making provocative and threatening comments about journalists on the state-owned broadcaster GRTS and does not hesitate to throw leading figures in prison as if they were common bandits.
“Firm condemnation of this situation by Washington would have the merit of ending the deafening silence about Gambia’s human rights violations and would reassure the sizable Gambian diaspora in the United States,” Reporters Without Borders said.
“The US intelligence services could also take the opportunity to release the information they have about the circumstances in which Deyda Hydara, the editor of the privately-owned newspaper The Point, was murdered in 2004,” Reporters Without Borders added. In the course of two detailed investigations into Hydara’s murder, the press freedom organisation found evidence indicating that President Jammeh’s security services were involved.
• discuss
What did you think of this article?

 

—————————————————————

Is There Anything Like 'A BAD LAW'? The Sierra Leone Public Order Act [1965]   What do you say?

by Israel Ojekeh Parper Snr (Notes) on Monday, 3 August 2009 at 05:52

 

I found this interesting piece of debatable writing in "PEEP", the on-line news portal and like to share its contents with all my friends, and even open up a discussion. I have been interested in this particular legislation - especially the "Seditious Libel" portion - since it was passed in 1965 by the Sir Albert Margai's government. Having just left the Grammar School, hot- headed and getting into the rudiments of current affairs, inculcated into our repertoire in the Literary and Debating Society (L and DS) in school, my interest in such matters were rather natural.

Remember the controversial News papers - "Think"; "We Yone"; "Nation"; and Editors? Writers like, Sam Metzger, Hollist, Ibrahin Taqi & T S Johnson, Bankole Timothy, Sam Short, Thomas Decker?etc.

Well, this is a good chance to open up the debate once again, because "The Law is The Law' and once it is in operation, having gone through the Statute Books, it must be obeyed. Is there anything such as a bad law?

Even the constitution has unfavourable provisions, but are they "bad" laws. Unless the Legislature change these unpalatable laws, or those established through case laws by the Judiciary and precedents are so replaced, the laws stay in place regardless of the consequences. All constitutions, even those of minor organisations in our society, have provisions that may not satisfy everyone, but in order to make changes to their clauses, we still have to look to the corpus or set of laws and invoke those parts that allow the changes. Several proposals could be made to change them, but unless these proposals pass through the mechanics provided within these constitutions or laws, they remain but only proposals and nothing more.

We saw Juxon-Smith trying to change the name of Sierra Leone to Songhai; we saw Strasser's effort to tamper with the 1991 Momoh's Constitution and appointed Kabbah as head of it's Constitutional Review Commission. Both had to be abandon with great embarrassments as their proposals were simply 'paper- tigers'; merely cosmetic efforts.
This topic is far away from Party Political, as over the past 40 years it has affected all Parties:- SLPP, APC, UDP, NRC, NPRC,AFRC; let us look into this matter, or the matters arising therefrom, without prejudice and discuss it openly and clearly.

THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1965 AS AMENDED- WHAT DO YOU SAY??

READ ON AND EXPRESS YOURSELVES OPENLY. "Written without any prejudice or favour one way or the other".............!




^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Public Order Act 1965

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13M5hOqiHu3VvHTKFD1ZBnwlILjB9IveCuLiGEoVo9OM/edit

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What Else Can We Do To Get Rid Of This Very Oppressive Law?  Friday, July 03, 2009 - Anonymous Writer

A colleague of mine argued the other day that SLAJ was being too 'confrontational' with the establishment over this issue. I honestly do not agree.
We began to agitate against the Public Order Act 1965 as soon as we returned to civilian rule in 1996. I was the secretary general of SLAJ at the time. After a series of consultative meetings, SLAJ drafted a series of proposals to create a neutral arbitration panel to which those who felt aggrieved by media coverage could complain.
Myself and then SLAJ vice president Tayib Bah handed these draft proposals over to SLPP minister of information, George Banda Thomas in June 1996 - that was 12 long years ago.
The proposals later found their way into law as the Independent Media Commission Act.
The IMC has the power to ensure, order retractions fine, even to 'ban' newspapers if its rulings are not complied with. For the Establishment this is not enough- they will never feel satisfied unless they have the power to jail a journalist for his/her opinions.
As far as press freedom goes in Sierra Leone -we are still in the middle Ages. Rest assured if they had the power to hang for libel they would fight assiduously to keep it.
I was arguing this point with a normally level headed policeman the other day. He is one of the few senior police officers I respect - a graduate of FBC and supposedly part of the new 'force for good' trained by British born I.G. Keith Biddle.
Now police men by the nature of their profession always want more power to look people up. But this cop's arguments were interesting.
Libel, he said, was an assault on the character of a person and of equal, if not greater, threat to that person than a physical assault.
No recompense, he said was a sufficient deferent except the physical incarceration of the person who did the libeling. He sat back with a self satisfied grin.
"But why does a person have to be jailed for his/her opinions when a factual correction could be ordered by the IMC?" I asked him. He really seemed to have no answer except the 'legitimate' desire for Revenge.
We have a medieval Establishment. They pay lip service to democracy but do not believe in it in principle. Indeed our 'political class' did not evolve belief in liberal principles, separation in church and State or freedom of the individual, press or speech /Assembly through a long struggle against a hostile 'Crown'. They only 'believe' in those principles because the Donors tell them they are a 'good thing'.
For over half of the history of this Independent Republic there were no right to freedom of speech, assembly and liberalism was seen as inimical to development. Today we still have a one party Establishment with a repressive mindset in a pluralist 'Democracy'
And let me quickly point out that this is not a partisan political issue. The APC is in favour of retaining the criminal seditious libel laws as much as the SLPP is. Why would they favour their abolition? They are useful in keeping the medic in line - on a leash.
Between acceding to power in March 1996 and its overthrow on May 25, 1997, the SLPP made more use of the POA than any other regime since Sir Albert's SLPP government which brought it back in 1965 basically to muzzle 'WeYone'
This despite the fact that Kabbah would never have come to power if the media had not insistently called for the return of Democracy, SLAJ voted, at Bintumani I and II for a return to constitutional rule. The NPRC was still talking about 'Peace Before Elections'.
Indeed just a few weeks before the 1997 coup which was to send His Excellency scampering off to Guinea, the SLPP government introduced even more repressive legislation The Newspaper and Media Practitioners Acts.
The coup plotters were putting their last preparations in place while we were picketing parliament against these laws (they passed in a single day and were on Kabbah's table awaiting his signature when the AFRC seized power).
The AFRC actually claimed to have made the coup to 'defend' the press (the first coup in the history of the world to protect press freedom). Of course this was a bogus rationalization. The AFRC was one of the most bloody and brutal regimes in Africa. They were no liberal 'defenders' of press freedom and the press engaged them resolutely at considerable risk to themselves. Did the politicians learn anything from this during their bitter period of exile? No - nothing - not a thing!
The SLPP jailed Paul Kamara twice under the Public Order Act between 2000 and 2002. Firstly for so called 'criminal libel' against High Court Judge Tolla Thompson, the second time for daring to refer to Kabbah as being 'unworthy' of becoming president-summarizing the findings of the 1969 Beoku-Betts commission.
Both convictions would have seen found unsafe in any country where the rule of law is really respected.
In the first trial, Paul had no lawyer for most parts of his trial. During proceedings his defence council was actually physically locked up for 'contempt of court' when he begin to cut too close to the bone.
The criminal /seditious libel sections of the Public Order Acts are political laws designed to protect the 'reputations' of people in the Establishment.
I doubt very much if they have ever been used by a man in the street against the press. They are laws designed to protect reputations of people who are, in all balance of probability, deeply corrupt, until very recently (with the passing of 2008 Anti Corruption Act), corruption was the Lowest Common Denominator of the Sierra Leone Establishment.
It would be interesting to see the Tolla Thompson matter re-tried in court now that an investigative audit of SLFA under his stewardship has been completed.
The judge in the case who is now, incidentally, Sierra Leone Chief Justice, jailed Paul Kamara, fined him one million leones (maximum fine under the 1965 act is Le 1000) and recommended' to the President trial his paper For Di People be banned for six months, The last provision is an addition penalty prescribed under the Act. It reminds me of the old penalty of 'Hanging Drawing Quartering' for treasonable offences against the Crown in the middle Ages. You were hanged until you were half dead, put on the rack and stretched till your bones cracked - finally you were beheaded and your dead body divided into four parts (quarters) and sent to North, South, East and West of England.
Banning for Di People' was a clear message to the Media and Public that we do not have freedom of expression. You do have periodic elections, but that's about as much Democracy as you're going to get.
Paul's conviction' for his seditious libel against Kabbah was reached after an even more farcical case. The judge, A.B Rashid was a boyhood friend or the former president and frequently let his bias show during proceedings. I was a character witness for the defence and was grilled in a very hostile manner, by His Lordship himself. Under the Public Order Act, John Love printers were also arrested and charged with criminal libel for printing For Di People's article. Kabbah's civil service records mysteriously varnished from Establishment files. I do not think its an exaggeration to describe the while affair as a 'shotgun trial before a hanging judge.'
When his appeal against the sentence came up, a year and a half later, it took less than 15 minutes for Justice Muria to dismiss the conviction and free the accused. Justice Muria, a foreign Judge from the Solomon Islands, was at least exposed to modern standards of jurisprudence and was infected with the mentality of a hanging mob 'Establishment'.
So let' refresh this quickly. SLAJ has 'negotiated options to repressive criminal libel laws (is the IMC). SLAJ has petitioned and gone to court in the last ten years alone. We are no closer to having this law repealed than we were in 1996. Meanwhile our members continue to be charged under this anti democratic law.
So I'm not quite sure which tactics we are supposed to adopt. President Ernest Koroma promised to 'review' the Public order Act during his 2007 elections campaign. He never sure he was going to scrap the law.
At present one pseudo journalist is on trial under the seditious/ criminal libel act. There is nothing stopping the APC from arresting and charging any of us tomorrow.
Frankly the APC also seems to believe they've done their best for the press - appointing a former newspaper editor as Minister of Information, giving plumb jobs as press attaches to journalist all over the world. Political parties appeal for votes from 'constituencies'. As far as the APC is concerned, they have the media in their pockets.
What's rather curious about this Government is that the minister of Information was SLAJ president when we mounted a legal challenge to the 1965 Public Order Act. Since I know my old colleague I.B Kargbo (we go back to the Tablet in 1978!) hasn't developed Alzheimer's, he definitely knows how strongly most of us feel about retention of this law on the statute books. But he has made a conscious choice not to rock the boat and make it a Big issue in cabinet.
So how; confrontational are we? Does anyone have any better ideas about how these laws can be repealed?
Do we go down on bended knees begging? I don't think it would achieve the expected outcome either. So unless you can tell us what the options are, then aren't we entitled to use all weapons in our 'arsenal' to get this government to listen and take action?
This is not a partisan political issue. We fought the SLPP over the public Order Act because it is a bad law. So how 'confrontational' are we? Does any one have better ideas about how this can be repeated?
So unless you can tell us what the option are-then aren't we entitled to use all weapons in our 'arsenal' to get this government to listen and take action? This is not a partisan political issue. We fought the SLPP over the Public Order Act because it is a bad law affecting the interest of our members (in SLAJ) let no one imagine we will not engage the APC on the same issue with exactly the same zeal.
I was chair of the free Paul Koroma Committee set up when the For Di People editor was jailed back in 2000. We petitioned, we marched all to no avail. Once the prison doors swing shut and the key is turned there's very little you can do to get a jailed journalist out of his confinement.
So it's better to be 'confrontational' now than after another media practitioner is unjustly jailed. As long as that law remains on the statute books it is a threat to all of us in this profession. That's not an exaggeration - it's a simple demonstrable fact. We do not have much public support on this issue because most Sierra Leoneans don't feel it doesn't involve them. 'Una take tem write' (be careful when you write) is the limit of what most educated Sierra Leoneans would be prepared to say on the matter.
Thus we have no option but to use the 'tools' we have to get this job done.
So for we have withdrawn coverage on the judiciary. But do they care?
We will do well to withdraw the 'oxygen of publicity' from information minister I.B Kargbo whom even SLPP Chairman John Benjamin agrees is 'doing well'. He's 'doing well' because he has media coverage- with that withdrawn we may jog his memory about his prior commitment to abolish the Public Order Act.
After that… what next? We should not rule anything out. In particular we probably need to 'internationalize' the issue. It's easier to do this now than for people abroad to understand protests about another jailed journalist in Sierra Leone.
'The Establishment' will have to defend its retention of anti-democrat laws if it wishes to continue to enjoy donor aid. This is a legitimate tactic, particularly given the feeling that the judiciary which upholds archaic and repressive laws is 'topped up' with generous grants from the Justice Secretariat. Development Programme, sponsored by DFID. Let's hit them where it hurts.
***********************************************************************************

Bad Law or Good Law , the Law is the Law and until Parliament changes or revokes it, the Law must be obeyed. 

Chief Justice Umu Hawa Tejan-Jalloh

 

IG Munu (Police Chief)

   

 

 

 

 

Justice Abel Strong (Speakerof Parliament)

 I found this interesting piece of debatable writing in "PEEP", the on-line news portal and like to share its contents with all my friends, and even open up a discussion. I have been interested in this particular legislation - especially the "Seditious Libel" portion- since it was passed in 1965 by the Sir Albert Margai's government. Having just left the Grammar School, hot- headed and getting into the rudiments of current affairs, inculcated into our repertoire in the Literary and Debating Society (L and DS) in school, my interest in such matters were rather natural. Remember the controversial News papers- "Think", "We Yone", "Nation", and Editors? writers like, Sam Metzger, Hollist, Ibrahin Taqui & T S Johnson, Bankole Timothy, Sam Short, Thomas Decker?
Well, this is a good chance to open up the debate once again, because "The Law is The Law' and once it is in operation, having gone through the Statute Books, it must be obeyed. Is there anything such as a bad law?
Even the constitution have unfavourable provisions, but are they "bad" laws. Unless the Legislature change these unpalatable laws, or those established through case laws by the Judiciary and precedents are so replaced, the laws stay in place regardless of the consequences. All constitutions, even those of minor organisations in our society, have provisions that may not satisfy everyone, but in order to make changes to their clauses, we still have to look to the corpus or set of laws and invoke those parts that allow the changes. Several proposals could be made to change them, but unless these proposals pass through the mechanics provided within these constitutions or laws, they remain but only proposals and nothing more.
We saw Juxon-Smith trying to change the name of Sierra Leone to Songhai; we saw Strasser's effort to tamper with the 1991 Momoh's Constitution and appointed Kabbah as head of it's commission. Both had to be abandon with great embarrassments as their proposals were simply 'paper- tiger'- merely cosmetic efforts.
This topic is far away from Party Political, as over the past 40 years it has affected all Parties:- SLPP, APC, UDP, NRC, NPRC,AFRC; let us look into this matter, or the matters arising therefrom, without prejudice and discuss it openly and clearly.
THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1965 AS AMENDED- WHAT DO YOU SAY??

READ ON AND EXPRESS YOURSELVES OPENLY. "Written without any prejudice or favour one way or the other".............
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What Else Can We Do To Get Rid Of This Very Oppressive Law?
Friday, July 03, 2009 - Anonymous Writer

A colleague of mine argued the other day that SLAJ was being too 'confrontational' with the establishment over this issue. I honestly do not agree.
We began to agitate against the Public Order Act 1965 as soon as we returned to civilian rule in 1996. I was the secretary general of SLAJ at the time. After a series of consultative meetings, SLAJ drafted a series of proposals to create a neutral arbitration panel to which those who felt aggrieved by media coverage could complain.
Myself and then SLAJ vice president Tayib Bah handed these draft proposals over to SLPP minister of information, George Banda Thomas in June 1996 - that was 12 long years ago.
The proposals later found their way into law as the Independent Media Commission Act.
The IMC has the power to ensure, order retractions fine, even to 'ban' newspapers if its rulings are not complied with. For the Establishment this is not enough- they will never feel satisfied unless they have the power to jail a journalist for his/her opinions.
As far as press freedom goes in Sierra Leone -we are still in the middle Ages. Rest assured if they had the power to hang for libel they would fight assiduously to keep it.
I was arguing this point with a normally level headed policeman the other day. He is one of the few senior police officers I respect - a graduate of FBC and supposedly part of the new 'force for good' trained by British born I.G. Keith Biddle.
Now police men by the nature of their profession always want more power to look people up. But this cop's arguments were interesting.
Libel, he said, was an assault on the character of a person and of equal, if not greater, threat to that person than a physical assault.
No recompense, he said was a sufficient deferent except the physical incarceration of the person who did the libeling. He sat back with a self satisfied grin.
"But why does a person have to be jailed for his/her opinions when a factual correction could be ordered by the IMC?" I asked him. He really seemed to have no answer except the 'legitimate' desire for Revenge.
We have a medieval Establishment. They pay lip service to democracy but do not believe in it in principle. Indeed our 'political class' did not evolve belief in liberal principles, separation in church and State or freedom of the individual, press or speech /Assembly through a long struggle against a hostile 'Crown'. They only 'believe' in those principles because the Donors tell them they are a 'good thing'.
For over half of the history of this Independent Republic there were no right to freedom of speech, assembly and liberalism was seen as inimical to development. Today we still have a one party Establishment with a repressive mindset in a pluralist 'Democracy'
And let me quickly point out that this is not a partisan political issue. The APC is in favour of retaining the criminal seditious libel laws as much as the SLPP is. Why would they favour their abolition? They are useful in keeping the medic in line - on a leash.
Between acceding to power in March 1996 and its overthrow on May 25, 1997, the SLPP made more use of the POA than any other regime since Sir Albert's SLPP government which brought it back in 1965 basically to muzzle 'WeYone'
This despite the fact that Kabbah would never have come to power if the media had not insistently called for the return of Democracy, SLAJ voted, at Bintumani I and II for a return to constitutional rule. The NPRC was still talking about 'Peace Before Elections'.
Indeed just a few weeks before the 1997 coup which was to send His Excellency scampering off to Guinea, the SLPP government introduced even more repressive legislation The Newspaper and Media Practitioners Acts.
The coup plotters were putting their last preparations in place while we were picketing parliament against these laws (they passed in a single day and were on Kabbah's table awaiting his signature when the AFRC seized power).
The AFRC actually claimed to have made the coup to 'defend' the press (the first coup in the history of the world to protect press freedom). Of course this was a bogus rationalization. The AFRC was one of the most bloody and brutal regimes in Africa. They were no liberal 'defenders' of press freedom and the press engaged them resolutely at considerable risk to themselves. Did the politicians learn anything from this during their bitter period of exile? No - nothing - not a thing!
The SLPP jailed Paul Kamara twice under the Public Order Act between 2000 and 2002. Firstly for so called 'criminal libel' against High Court Judge Tolla Thompson, the second time for daring to refer to Kabbah as being 'unworthy' of becoming president-summarizing the findings of the 1969 Beoku-Betts commission.
Both convictions would have seen found unsafe in any country where the rule of law is really respected.
In the first trial, Paul had no lawyer for most parts of his trial. During proceedings his defence council was actually physically locked up for 'contempt of court' when he begin to cut too close to the bone.
The criminal /seditious libel sections of the Public Order Acts are political laws designed to protect the 'reputations' of people in the Establishment.
I doubt very much if they have ever been used by a man in the street against the press. They are laws designed to protect reputations of people who are, in all balance of probability, deeply corrupt, until very recently (with the passing of 2008 Anti Corruption Act), corruption was the Lowest Common Denominator of the Sierra Leone Establishment.
It would be interesting to see the Tolla Thompson matter re-tried in court now that an investigative audit of SLFA under his stewardship has been completed.
The judge in the case who is now, incidentally, Sierra Leone Chief Justice, jailed Paul Kamara, fined him one million leones (maximum fine under the 1965 act is Le 1000) and recommended' to the President trial his paper For Di People be banned for six months, The last provision is an addition penalty prescribed under the Act. It reminds me of the old penalty of 'Hanging Drawing Quartering' for treasonable offences against the Crown in the middle Ages. You were hanged until you were half dead, put on the rack and stretched till your bones cracked - finally you were beheaded and your dead body divided into four parts (quarters) and sent to North, South, East and West of England.
Banning for Di People' was a clear message to the Media and Public that we do not have freedom of expression. You do have periodic elections, but that's about as much Democracy as you're going to get.
Paul's conviction' for his seditious libel against Kabbah was reached after an even more farcical case. The judge, A.B Rashid was a boyhood friend or the former president and frequently let his bias show during proceedings. I was a character witness for the defence and was grilled in a very hostile manner, by His Lordship himself. Under the Public Order Act, John Love printers were also arrested and charged with criminal libel for printing For Di People's article. Kabbah's civil service records mysteriously varnished from Establishment files. I do not think its an exaggeration to describe the while affair as a 'shotgun trial before a hanging judge.'
When his appeal against the sentence came up, a year and a half later, it took less than 15 minutes for Justice Muria to dismiss the conviction and free the accused. Justice Muria, a foreign Judge from the Solomon Islands, was at least exposed to modern standards of jurisprudence and was infected with the mentality of a hanging mob 'Establishment'.
So let' refresh this quickly. SLAJ has 'negotiated options to repressive criminal libel laws (is the IMC). SLAJ has petitioned and gone to court in the last ten years alone. We are no closer to having this law repealed than we were in 1996. Meanwhile our members continue to be charged under this anti democratic law.
So I'm not quite sure which tactics we are supposed to adopt. President Ernest Koroma promised to 'review' the Public order Act during his 2007 elections campaign. He never sure he was going to scrap the law.
At present one pseudo journalist is on trial under the seditious/ criminal libel act. There is nothing stopping the APC from arresting and charging any of us tomorrow.
Frankly the APC also seems to believe they've done their best for the press- appointing a former newspaper editor as Minister of Information, giving plumb jobs as press attaches to journalist all over the world. Political parties appeal for votes from 'constituencies'. As far as the APC is concerned, they have the media in their pockets.
What's rather curious about this Government is that the minister of Information was SLAJ president when we mounted a legal challenge to the 1965 Public Order Act. Since I know my old colleague I.B Kargbo (we go back to the Tablet in 1978!) hasn't developed Alzheimer's, he definitely knows how strongly most of us feel about retention of this law on the statute books. But he has made a conscious choice not to rock the boat and make it a Big issue in cabinet.
So how; confrontational are we? Does anyone have any better ideas about how these laws can be repealed?
Do we go down on bended knees begging? I don't think it would achieve the expected outcome either. So unless you can tell us what the options are, then aren't we entitled to use all weapons in our 'arsenal' to get this government to listen and take action?
This is not a partisan political issue. We fought the SLPP over the public Order Act because it is a bad law. So how 'confrontational' are we? Does any one have better ideas about how this can be repeated?
So unless you can tell us what the option are-then aren't we entitled to use all weapons in our 'arsenal' to get this government to listen and take action? This is not a partisan political issue. We fought the SLPP over the Public Order Act because it is a bad law affecting the interest of our members (in SLAJ) let no one imagine we will not engage the APC on the same issue with exactly the same zeal.
I was chair of the free Paul Koroma Committee set up when the For Di People editor was jailed back in 2000. We petitioned, we marched all to no avail. Once the prison doors swing shut and the key is turned there's very little you can do to get a jailed journalist out of his confinement.
So it's better to be 'confrontational' now than after another media practitioner is unjustly jailed. As long as that law remains on the statute books it is a threat to all of us in this profession. That's not an exaggeration - it's a simple demonstrable fact. We do not have much public support on this issue because most Sierra Leoneans don't feel it doesn't involve them. 'Una take tem write' (be careful when you write) is the limit of what most educated Sierra Leoneans would be prepared to say on the matter.
Thus we have no option but to use the 'tools' we have to get this job done.
So for we have withdrawn coverage on the judiciary. But do they care?
We will do well to withdraw the 'oxygen of publicity' from information minister I.B Kargbo whom even SLPP Chairman John Benjamin agrees is 'doing well'. He's 'doing well' because he has media coverage- with that withdrawn we may jog his memory about his prior commitment to abolish the Public Order Act.
After that… what next? We should not rule anything out. In particular we probably need to 'internationalize' the issue. It's easier to do this now than for people abroad to understand protests about another jailed journalist in Sierra Leone.
'The Establishment' will have to defend its retention of anti-democrat laws if it wishes to continue to enjoy donor aid. This is a legitimate tactic, particularly given the feeling that the judiciary which upholds archaic and repressive laws is 'topped up' with generous grants from the Justice Secretariat. Development Programme, sponsored by DFID. Let's hit them where it hurts.
***********************************************************************************

Bad Law or Good Law , the Law is the Law and until Parliament changes or revokes it, the Law must be obeyed
Please express your feelings- and let us all learn from them.

 Please express your feelings- and let us all learn from them