adhere728v90


Under the dynamic astute leadership of President Bio and his no-nonsense Anti Corruption Commission commissioner, Sierra Leone is breaking records in the fight against corruption which the president and on assuming office in April 2018 described as single most destructive enemy of economic growth and development in the country.


The attitude of Sierra Leoneans generally to wish bad to happen to others made a disgusted late president Ahmad Tejan Kabbah as he was fighting tooth and nail to make peace with Foday Sankoh’s RUF rebels, whilst some in his government sought behind his back to derail the process made him remark that “Salone man get bad hart”.


Like the VP Samuel Sam Sumana saga that evidently split the Sierra Leone Bar Association, the advent of the Commissions of Inquiry has further deepened the break up, following the emergence of a minority splinter group known as “Concerned Members”.


Given the unruly behavior put by APC supporters that barricaded themselves into their party headquarters building at Old Railway Line on Friday May 31st from where they threw stones and bottles at OSD personnel, the signs are very clear that APC wants another bloody civil war in this country simply because the majority of the people voted against them in the 2018 presidential elections in favor of SLPP’s Julius Maada Bio.


In search of a New Direction, and the right direction, Sierra Leoneans in the March 2018 presidential elections voted for the Sierra Leone People’s Party Government headed by Retired Brigadier Julius Maada Bio.


“Since the Commission of Inquiry is an administrative body and not a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, it is not bound by the rules of evidence. It is not trying any cause between contesting parties and its proceedings are not as formal as in a judicial inquiry” - From: Academike - Lawctopus.

The Government hopes that the three Commissions of Inquiry will help to change Sierra Leone’s political and development narratives from non-accountability by persons entrusted with public offices and corruption which has held back the country’s growth out of poverty since the 1970s.
Commissions are often confused with courts of law. This isn’t surprising given that they seem to function like courts. For example, they’re often chaired by judges, affected parties are often represented by lawyers and witnesses take oaths to tell the truth. But they aren’t courts. And it’s important to understand the difference between the two when it comes to their functions, powers, and procedures.

The differences
A court judgment is binding and has direct legal effect on the parties involved. The court will determine that the accused goes to prison, for example, or that the defendant pays damages. The only way affected parties can escape the court order is by getting it overturned on appeal or review by a higher court. Commissions of inquiry, on the other hand, make non-binding recommendations to the person who set them up - In the case of the three commissions, President Bio.

Technically, all commissions do is offer the person who set them up advice. And they’re required to stick to the issues on which advice was requested. These are set out in the terms of reference which establish what questions the commission must answer, who will head it up and what its powers are. Commissions of inquiry are completely different from courts when it comes to procedures too. Courts are adversarial. The judge sits as an outside observer while the two teams before her attempt to establish their version of events.

Commissions of inquiry, on the other hand, are inquisitorial. This makes the commission the driver of the investigation itself. It seeks out the facts rather than waiting for two opposing parties to choose and present their evidence. In an inquisitorial process, the witnesses and their lawyers are merely assisting the commission’s investigation.

An important consequence of the inquisitorial process is that a commission is not bound by the same rules of evidence as in a court. Thus evidence will never be “inadmissible”, as the commission enjoys discretion to consider all evidence that it finds relevant to its inquiry.
Why the confusion?
With these important distinctions in mind, why have some commissions become “judicialised” and lawyer-driven? Why was the first day of the Commission taken up with technicalities? Why have postponements been built into the process so that “implicated parties” can study the allegations made against them?
It’s not just to stave off the threat of a court challenge to any findings. Such a threat is, in fact, not much of a threat at all. Commissions of inquiry will not be subject to the (higher) standards of so-called “administrative” review unless their findings have a direct effect on the persons who might want to challenge them. But the direct effect would arise only when the president acts on the findings.
The president wouldn’t be subject to administrative review in many of these cases either. Instead, the president and the commission will be subject to review for “rationality”. A rationality review asks only whether there is a rational connection between the conduct challenged before the court and a legitimate governmental objective.
Commissions have another, equally crucial function – to educate the public and ensuring its buy-in for important processes of change and renewal.
“Since the Commission of Inquiry is an administrative body and not a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, it is not bound by the rules of evidence. It is not trying any cause between contesting parties and its proceedings are not as formal as in a judicial inquiry” - From: Academike - Lawctopus
The Government hopes that the three Commissions of Inquiry will help to change Sierra Leone’s political and development narratives from non-accountability by persons entrusted with public offices and corruption which has held back the country’s growth out of poverty since the 1970s.
Commissions are often confused with courts of law. This isn’t surprising given that they seem to function like courts. For example, they’re often chaired by judges, affected parties are often represented by lawyers and witnesses take oaths to tell the truth. But they aren’t courts. And it’s important to understand the difference between the two when it comes to their functions, powers, and procedures.
The differences

A court judgment is binding and has direct legal effect on the parties involved. The court will determine that the accused goes to prison, for example, or that the defendant pays damages. The only way affected parties can escape the court order is by getting it overturned on appeal or review by a higher court. Commissions of inquiry, on the other hand, make non-binding recommendations to the person who set them up - In the case of the three commissions, President Bio.

Technically, all commissions do is offer the person who set them up advice. And they’re required to stick to the issues on which advice was requested. These are set out in the terms of reference which establish what questions the commission must answer, who will head it up and what its powers are. Commissions of inquiry are completely different from courts when it comes to procedures too. Courts are adversarial. The judge sits as an outside observer while the two teams before her attempt to establish their version of events.

Commissions of inquiry, on the other hand, are inquisitorial. This makes the commission the driver of the investigation itself. It seeks out the facts rather than waiting for two opposing parties to choose and present their evidence. In an inquisitorial process, the witnesses and their lawyers are merely assisting the commission’s investigation.

An important consequence of the inquisitorial process is that a commission is not bound by the same rules of evidence as in a court. Thus evidence will never be “inadmissible”, as the commission enjoys discretion to consider all evidence that it finds relevant to its inquiry.
Why the confusion?

With these important distinctions in mind, why have some commissions become “judicialised” and lawyer-driven? Why was the first day of the Commission taken up with technicalities? Why have postponements been built into the process so that “implicated parties” can study the allegations made against them?
It’s not just to stave off the threat of a court challenge to any findings. Such a threat is, in fact, not much of a threat at all. Commissions of inquiry will not be subject to the (higher) standards of so-called “administrative” review unless their findings have a direct effect on the persons who might want to challenge them. But the direct effect would arise only when the president acts on the findings.

The president wouldn’t be subject to administrative review in many of these cases either. Instead, the president and the commission will be subject to review for “rationality”. A rationality review asks only whether there is a rational connection between the conduct challenged before the court and a legitimate governmental objective.
Commissions have another, equally crucial function – to educate the public and ensuring its buy-in for important processes of change and renewal.


Opposition All Peoples Congress (APC) pundits have been in overdrive in the last week or so, deriding President Julius Bio for relieving the bow-tied former Anti-Corruption Commissioner, Ady Macauley Esq from a position he had no business occupying in the first place. They contend that the President’s action in removing Mr. Ady Macauley is in contravention of portions of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) Act (2008).They point specifically to Section 4 of the Act, which deals with the Tenure of Office of the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner.


Tackling corruption and instilling a culture of good governance in both the public and private sectors is the most important development challenge that Sierra Leone has faced since the 1970s.

In continuation with President Julius Maada Bio’s administrative transformation in the New Direction to ensure good governance, a memo from the Director General of the Human Resource Management Office, dated 13 June 2018 has transferred 16 procurement officers from one ministry to another with immediate effect.

Announcements

CAREER OPPORTUNITY

29 March 2020
Invitation for Bids

Invitation for Bids

26 January 2020

JOB ADVERTISEMENT

26 January 2020

JOB ADVERTISEMENT

26 January 2020

PUBLIC NOTICE

26 January 2020

INVITATION TO BID

26 January 2020
Invitation for Bids

Invitation for Bids

07 August 2019
JOB ADVERTISEMENT

JOB ADVERTISEMENT

25 July 2019
JOB ADVERTISEMENT

JOB ADVERTISEMENT

25 July 2019

PUBLIC NOTICE

25 July 2019
PUBLIC NOTICE

PUBLIC NOTICE

07 July 2019