New York)
Charles Margai violates
basic tenet of the rule of law
For any practicing
lawyer, professional codes of conduct and canons of ethics dictate that
compliance with the law - at all times and under every circumstance - is not a matter
of choice. Any member of the legal profession who conscientiously fails to heed
not only to the letter, but the spirit of the law violates this basic tenet,
whether or not he is regarded as forthright, reliable, eloquent or cunning in
the discharge of his duties. This – in my opinion – is exactly what a veteran
lawyer in Sierra Leone, opposition politician, Charles Margai, has done in the
course of an apparent land dispute with Sia Koroma, wife of the country’s
President.
Specifically, Mr.
Margai, a seasoned and respected member of the bench, has engaged in conduct
that completely disparages the rule of law, to wit, threatening to mobilize
over a thousand kamajors, members of a
now disbanded civil defense militia, he claims are at his disposal, to defend
him and protect the property at the heart of the dispute with the First Lady
should the need arise.
The kamajors were local hunters who banded together at the beginning
of the civil war to protect defenseless villages and towns in the countryside
that were being brutally attacked by the ruthless Revolutionary United Front
(RUF) rebels and renegade soldiers of the government known as sobels. During the course of their
efforts in that campaign, the group also engaged in conducts against perceived
enemies as well as civilians deemed to be gross human rights violations. These
included summary executions, making them as equally feared as the RUF. The
group was disbanded following the end of the war in 2002.
Leaving aside the
undeniable departure from the professional conduct and probity demanded of all
legal practitioners, Mr. Margai’s statement is exceedingly reckless and
inflammatory at best and liable to instigate violence at the worst. Given the
known excesses of the kamajors during
the civil war and the unspeakable brutality and horrors visited upon Sierra
Leoneans by all sides to the conflict, it is difficult to imagine that Mr.
Margai did not appreciate that his comments would cause nervousness in a
war-scarred population still in the process of healing; nor can one fathom how
an erudite lawyer such as Mr. Margai did not recognize such comments could
undermine state security.
This article is not
concerned with the question of who owns the disputed land. And while it is fair
to ask questions about the involvement of the First Lady in this particular
row, both Mr. Margai and Mrs. Koroma are citizens of Sierra Leone with equal
rights under the law, including the right to own property.
According to Mr. Margai,
as a consequence of the ongoing land dispute, he has lost confidence in the
legal system to protect his right to the property he claims ownership to and to
defend him, should that need arise. This he claims is the reason he may need to
resort to the kamajors. However, Mr.
Margai is himself an active member of the bar and frequently appears in courts
of the law to represent clients. Such participation in the legal system would
tend to suggest some level of faith in its efficacy and the dispensation of
justice.
The justice that Mr.
Margai seeks via the kamajor route
clearly represents gross recklessness, anarchy and lawlessness, and is liable
to enflame partisans. Indeed, it has resulted in equally untenable reactions
from some who are opposed to Mr. Margai’s stance. In some quarters, it has generated arguments
seeking to tie the main opposition party, the Sierra Leone People’s Party
(SLPP) to Mr. Margai’s attitude and conduct. Of course, his position has
nothing to do with the SLPP. After all, he is considered the kingmaker of the APC
government, having virtually assured their victory in the 2007 elections by
breaking away from the incumbent SLPP.
Given the brutal nature
of the civil war in Sierra Leone, there is little doubt Mr. Margai’s comments
have brought back painful memories and caused uneasiness in the minds of those
who survived the dark period of the 1990s.
If anything, Mr.
Margai’s cavalier statement leads to the question: is there an organized
kamajor presence still in the country? This is something the nation deserves to
know.
Even with the obvious
challenge of securing a judgment in his favor in a court of law, against the
spouse of the President, there is no reason for a learned and senior lawyer to
eschew the rule of law and resort to what amounts to “bush justice. Moreover, in an era of increasing
globalization, there are also legitimate sources at one’s disposal to seek
justice outside the one’s own country. Kamajor justice, unfortunately, is not
one of them.
It is now up to the laws
of the land to determine whether Mr. Margai’s utterances are punishable crimes.
However, it was appropriate for the police to arrest and detain him because the
authorities themselves would be grossly irresponsible if they had remained
silent in the face of Margai’s statement. But the authorities also must ensure
that the ongoing land dispute that gave rise to this episode is properly
addressed, particularly given the involvement of the First Lady. This it must
do in a transparent manner without interference or threat of punishment or
reprisal. Accordingly, the rights of the true owner of the property in dispute
must be protected by the court in its determination so that justice is done and
seen to be done, especially because of the high visibility of the case.
Aroun Rashid Deen is a freelance journalist in New York.
This article is entirely
the opinion of the writer. It does not represent the general view to this
media.
