On Friday 12 July, 2013, we released an Open Letter to London Mining raising several concerns regarding the operations of the company in Lunsar town in the Marampa chiefdom. The Open Letter to London Mining drew a response from the company which was published in the Patriotic Vanguard, one of Sierra Leone’s popular online newspapers, on 24 July, 2013.
In their response, London Mining signaled a willingness to engage us in a healthy dialogue to chart the way forward. A line of communication was established between us and London Mining. We solicited certain documents that were made available to us. Eventually, a meeting was arranged between us and London Mining. The meeting took place on 3 October, 2013 on the campus of Virginia State University in America. Claude Perras, London Mining’s Head
of Sustainability whose office is in London, represented the company at this meeting.
Claude Perras made a presentation and shared with us a heap of documents relating to almost everything London Mining is doing in Sierra Leone. He also offered the company’s perspectives on the concerns we raised in our Open Letter.
After the meeting, we, the Lunsar Advocacy Group, met to discuss the way forward. We decided to do further investigation to verify the claims made by Claude Perras at our meeting. A member of the group travelled to Sierra Leone and spent a couple of weeks meeting with stakeholders in the Chiefdom and in Lunsar in particular, visiting sites in the mining area as well as in the flooded areas.
Based on what we have gathered from our meeting with Claude Perras, the documents in our hands, and the people on the ground, we have come to the conclusion that the most important issues raised in our Open Letter to London Mining, i.e., land grabbing and the dust along the haul road, have still not been resolved and we are now poised to seek redress outside the shores of Sierra Leone.
We wish to make it abundantly clear that we appreciate the fact that London Mining has created jobs for Sierra Leoneans thereby improving the lives of families in our country. We are also not oblivious to the naked fact that the company is under pressure from our politicians to do certain things they are not supposed to do, such as renovating the official quarters of the District Officer and the Local Unit Commander. Whilst we do want London Mining to stay and continue to provide employment for our fellow Sierra Leoneans, we want them to do so in a manner consistent with their corporate social responsibility. In particular, we want London Mining to pay attention to the environmental effects of their operations to both the people and the land, and to ensure that when they shall have left, Marampa Chiefdom and Lunsar in particular, will have something to show for it. Below are the unresolved concerns:
Land Grabbing:
In London Mining’s response to our Open Letter, the company stated thus:
“London Mining complies with Section 115 of the Mines and Minerals Act which stipulates the edge of this concession must be clearly marked, and this is done with a series of beacons highlighting the concession area, which has not changed since the Mining Lease Agreement was ratified by the parliament of Sierra Leone in 2010.”
We find this to be an evasive response to one of the most important concerns raised in our Open Letter. We are very much aware of the scandalous lease agreement ratified by Sierra Leone’s own parliament. The problem is, the shameful ratification of the scandalous agreement fraudulently conceded parts of Lunsar town to London Mining. That is what we are vehemently protesting.
At our meeting on 3 October, 2013, Claude Perras shared with us a map of the concession found in that sinful charade called, ‘Mining Agreement.” The map seriously encroaches on land on both the East and West of Lunsar town owned by some families. London Mining, before our Open Letter, had effectively stopped constructions of homes and a school on such land.
However, since our Open Letter, the company has backed down but the land still remains in the concession map. We urge London Mining and the government to either simply adopt the old concession map under DELCO, or draw a new one that leaves “Lunsar East” and “Lunsar West” out of the concession. There is no reason whatsoever to grab these pieces of land from
the people. Claude Perras clearly told us at our meeting that the company does not intend to either mine there or make any other use of those pieces of land. Why grab the land then, London Mining? We wish to remind London Mining once again of Section 32 of the Mines and Minerals Act, 2009:
32 (1) The holder of a mineral right shall not exercise any of his rights under the mineral
rights—
(a) In respect of any land dedicated or set apart for any public purpose other than mining including any street, road, highway, or aerodrome except with the written consent of the responsible minister or other authority having control over such land;
(b) Except with the written consent of the owner or lawful occupier or his duly
authorized agent, in respect of—
(ii) any land which is the site of, or which is within two hundred metres or such greater distance as may be prescribed, of any inhabited, occupied or temporarily unoccupied house or building;
The people of Lunsar have not, and will not surrender “Lunsar East” and “Lunsar West” to anyone either by written or oral consent. If the concession map is not redrawn to exclude “Lunsar East” and “Lunsar West,” we will make good our threat to sue London Mining outside the shores of Sierra Leone.
Haul Road Dust Emission
At our meeting of 3 October, 2013, Claude Perras, in answering a question about the dust emission on a daily basis by the company’s haul vehicles along a dirt road constructed by London Mining, told us in no uncertain terms that the company has no intention to tar the strip of the dirt road that goes through a residential area. He said the company uses or is considering using chemicals to suppress the dust.
We totally reject this proposal for several reasons:
Firstly, nowhere in the developed world does an industrial dirt road pass through a residential area. Neither in England nor in Canada does a dirt road used as a haul trunk by an industrial company run through a residential area. The dirt road we are talking about runs right through a residential area in Lunsar.
Secondly, research is clear on the adverse effects of dust itself on the population exposed to it, as well as the effects of the dust palliatives or dust suppressants used on dirt roads.
According to Rapid Response Research Service, some of the environmental consequences of applying and using chemical dust palliatives include:
(a) Airborne transformation and transport of chemicals during or after application, especially of volatile substance
(b) Plant uptake
(c) Ingestion by animals (and subsequent ingestion of exposed animals by humans)
(d) Infiltration to the water table
(e) Potential impact on soil microbiology
(f) Human or animal consumption of contaminated groundwater
There are also several issues relating to the health of humans exposed to the dust along the dirt road, and even to others living away from the road because fine dust particulates can be carried a distance away from the original site. This fugitive dust penetrates nearby homes, clogging respiratory systems of humans, stunting plant growth due to clogged plant pores, and increasing turbidity in nearby streams and creeks.
According to Patient.co.uk, a health care website where doctors in the United Kingdom publish their research findings, exposure to dust can cause Pneumoconiosis (dusty lung). The inhalation and retention of dust in the lung can cause “…a range of granulomatous and fibrotic changes.”
Thus, the inorganic dust inhaled by residents along London Mining’s dirt road can cause a range of lung diseases including silicosis.
If London Mining insists on not paving the dirt road they created through a residential area, we will carry out a medical mission to test the residents living near that road for diseases linked to dust inhalation, and sue the company on behalf of those people, especially children who constitute the future of our country. We are aware that there may be a long latency between exposure and the presentation of a long disease but our medical mission will serve to establish a base line especially for the young who inhale this “industrial dust” on a daily basis.
Local Content Policy: Employment and Contracting
In London Mining’s response to our Open Letter, the company claimed that:
“London Mining always seeks to obtain its products and services locally in order to support the wider economic community around its mine,” and that, “Marampa Mine currently employs approximately 1, 400 direct employees and 1,835 indirect employees through subcontractors, of whom 92% are native Sierra Leoneans with nearly half from Lunsar.”
This statement is far from the reality on the ground. We have obtained several documents from London Mining, but have not been able to secure any document to substantiate the above claim. Jobs, including menial ones, are still being given to foreign workers shipped from other countries. But the most disheartening thing is happening at the hauling contract level. This is an area were London Mining cannot bear total blame.
Since our meeting with Claude Perras in October 2013, the implementation of the Local Content Policy in the award of hauling contracts by London Mining has been disastrous. Local content has effectively become local contempt. What has made the situation even worse is the complex web of nefarious activities of senior members of the government and other elected officials of the district who are interested in nothing but the lining of their pockets. Before now, Sierra Leoneans who had vehicles were able to secure subcontracts from Bolore, the company that won the contract to haul iron ore to the loading terminal. Through such contracts, the lives of several Sierra Leonean families were improved. Now, Bolore has been forced to concede 30% of the contract. The problem however is implementation. A cabal of connected APC officials is on the
verge of anointing a single individual to handle the contract. An individual going by the name of ‘Ambush Commander” goes around talking about making money for the APC party through the hauling contract. The intention is to create a monopoly by choosing a single individual with enormous resources to handle what used to be handled by many individual local entrepreneurs.
The so-called “Ambush Commander” is a mere front for a well-resourced Sierra Leonean called Daklala who has already purchased a lot of vehicles for the hauling contract. What will happen to the other nationals who had invested in the hauling business?
We are aware that some senior APC ministers and operatives are behind this pending deal. We wish to remind these individuals that the Local Content Policy seeks to foster Private sector participation from nationals, and that “the overall goal of the Local Content Policy is to promote growth and development of the domestic private sector by creating linkages with large domestic and foreign firms through the utilization of local resources, products, and to promote the
integration of the Sierra Leoneans in all economic activities.”
What is happening in London Mining with regard to the hauling contracts is anything but the “development of Sierra Leonean small and medium enterprises.” It is the creation of a soiled monopoly to continue to enrich those already rich through corrupt means. How does this encourage entrepreneurship among nationals or locals?
The Local Content Committee and the Ministry of Trade and Industry which serves as a secretariat to the Local Content Committee must look seriously into the hauling contract in London Mining. The Committee must not allow this monopoly to take place for it does not augur well for the country or the chiefdom.
We are prepared to not only name and shame all the ministers and elected officials involved in this deal, but will confront them ourselves.
Manonkoh Flooding
The Manonkoh flooding has been written about many times in Sierra Leone’s national papers.
The flooding is one of the serious environmental issues London Mining has had to deal with.
The people of Manonkoh lost crops and farm lands due to the flooding. In response to the Manonkoh people’s threat to sue the company, the Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency (SLE-PA), retained two independent experts to ascertain the cause of flooding. The report of that technical evaluation absolved London Mining. The EPA experts concluded that
the flooding was not caused by London Mining but by culverts which were installed by Delco.
We have documents to show that the Chief of Manonkoh and others signed an MOU declaring that London Mining was not responsible for the flooding. However, when one of our members visited Manonkoh and spoke with the people, they clearly believe that the flooding was caused by London Mining. They said they signed the MOU only because the government agency responsible for the protection of the environment absolved the company. The Manonkoh people
argue that those culverts have been there for decades, and there had been torrential rains but no flooding had ever occurred until London Mining meddled with the dam created by Delco.
In their bid to exploit the tailings left behind by Delco, London Mining had to create a road between Valley A and Valley B, leaving a tiny passage for water to pass through. The people believe that it is the impediment to the free flow of water that caused the flooding. We hope that adequate steps are being taken, if not already taken, to prevent another flooding. We are not convinced that the flooding was not caused by the operations of London Mining and we are closely monitoring the situation in Manonkoh.
Health Centre
Our investigation revealed that the Health Centre at the Mine is only for expatriate workers.
Indigenous workers only receive first aid service. Each worker is entitled to a medical allowance of five million Leones (Le5, 000,000.00) a year. Healthcare for the workers is subcontracted to an Internal Insurance Company which in turn subcontracts local pharmacies. While the medical allowance may sound wonderful by Sierra Leone standards, there are serious questions about this
arrangement. In the first place who assesses the worker when he or she is sick to know what is wrong with him or her? What guarantee is there that the so-called pharmacies are not prescribing fake medications? We are dealing with people’s health and a good health centre run by good medical personnel is the right way to go. In a Mining environment such as London Mining’s accidents are inevitable and acute injuries occur that may require prompt emergency solutions.
Also, heat strokes are common in hot locales where mining companies operate. These, among many other reasons, for London Mining to have its own hospital adequately equipped to serve the medical needs of its workers and their families.
We wish to appeal to our elected officials and London Mining to make sure that some of the money identified for Corporate Social Responsibility goes towards constructing a real hospital in Lunsar. Such hospital will not only take care of the workers and their families, but will be one of the best investments the company could have ever made for the people.
Sheikh Umarr Kamarah, Ph.D.
Professor of English and Linguistics
Virginia State University
USA
M. Saidu Kabia, Ph.D. (French and Comparative Literature)
(PaKuma Crowning House, not Kennedie)
Associate Professor
Virginia State University
USA
Francis O.B. Smith
Senior Technical Manager
Alcatel-Lucent
Sprint Network Eng. Vision Project
4g-LTE/3G-EVDO Wireless networks
USA
Hassan Baraka, M.Sc. (Hons)
Businessman and Writer
USA
Abdul Med Bangura, MST, CFE, CFSA, CPA
USA
Paul Abdul Kabba, MBA, MS H.A.
USA
Augustine Alusine Kamara, MD
USA
Amadu Sanpha Jalloh, Jr. MSMET/MIS, BSEE
Broadband/Data Network
Engineer
USA
Photo: Professor Sheikh Umarr Kamarah.
Comments