Commentary
Nurturing Internal Party Democracy and Constitutional Rule in the
Governing Sierra Leone People’s Party: Can David Sengeh’s IEMOC
Pass the Test?
By Owen M.M. KaiCombey, Ireland
Introduction
Following the chaos that characterised the election of the National Women’s Leader
of the governing Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) in Kailahun Town on Saturday
27th November 2021, the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) met in the
North-Western city of Port Loko on Tuesday 30th November 2021. Among others, the party resolved to re-conduct the National Women’s Leader election in Freetown on Thursday 2nd December 2021, and hold the National Delegates Conference in Bo from 22-23 December 2021. They also appointed an eight-man Independent Elections Monitoring and Oversight Committee (IEMOC), headed by Sierra Leone’s Minister of Basic and Senior Secondary Education, Dr. David Moinina Sengeh. The mandate of IEMOC includes superintending over the long-awaited election of National Officers of the Party scheduled to take place in the city of Bo. However, many political analysts and legal scholars are still wondering whether the SLPP – the oldest-surviving political party in West Africa - is genuinely committed to nurturing internal democratic principles, or the present move by the party is a mere political gimmick aimed at appeasing disaffected party supporters who were already pointing accusing fingers at certain individuals in the corridors of power in the wake of the Kailahun incident.
This article critically examines the broad legal and policy frameworks that support
internal party democracy in Sierra Leone. Specifically, it draws attention to Article 4
of the 11th August 2020 Constitution of the Sierra Leone People’s Party appertaining to “Guidelines for Elections at The National Party Conference.” The article outlines the significance of internal party democracy in constitutional democracies; it then
discusses the current legal frameworks for advancing internal democracy in the SLPP.
It concludes with a quick appraisal of the Sengeh-led IEMOC, and proffers some
suggestions for the nurturing of internal party democracy within the SLPP and Sierra
Leone generally.
I. The Significance of Internal Party Democracy in Constitutional
Democracies.
Also known as intra-party democracy, Internal Party Democracy refers to the level
and methods of including party members in decision-making processes within party
structures. Just as the citizens of a nation are entitled to cast ballots in elections, so the citizens of a political party – its registered members - should be allowed to appoint or reject their leaders, officeholders, and candidates for public office.
Through elections, members of political parties select and gain control over their political masters. Intraparty democracy also nurtures citizens’ political competencies and contributes towards producing competent representatives who in turn ensure that the political party delivers better policies and political programmes for the state.
In modern constitutional democracies, there are several properties that contribute
towards the advancement of internal party democracy. Among these are the rules that govern the organizational structure of the party. These rules should be agreed upon through a transparent process championed by ordinary members of the party, and could only be changed following well-established and recognised procedures.
Secondly, only elections should provide access to leadership positions in the party.
This means that nomination of candidates for elections must involve a properly
defined electoral college, and not left to the whims of a single leader, or a group of
influential persons within the political establishment. Thirdly, the internal functioning
of political parties should be legally regulated. Such regulations may include
candidate selection rules, rules for the holding of lower and upper-level elections, or
rules relating to the representation of women and other minority groups.
The significance of upholding internal party democracy is also underscored in several
international instruments to which Sierra Leone is a party. These include the 1948
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 21), the 1966 Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (Article 25), the 1981 African Charter on Human and People’s Rights
(Article 13), the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), and the
Conference on Security, Stability Development and Cooperation in Africa (CSSDCA).
Each of these instruments urges Member States (including Sierra Leone) to
domesticate their treaty obligations regarding freedom of political association and
internal party democracy.
II. Legal Framework for the Nurturing of Internal Party Democracy in Sierra
Leone
The laws of Sierra Leone make ample provisions for the promotion of internal party
democracy. For instance, Articles 34 and 35 of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone
(Act No. 6 of 1991), and the Political Parties Act of 2002 outline the normative and
institutional frameworks within which political parties can be established in Sierra
Leone. Article 34(1) of the 1991 Constitution requires political parties to register with
the four-member Political Parties Registration Commission (PPRC) before they could
lawfully operate in the country. Moreover, Article 35(1) of the 1991 Constitution
authorizes political parties to participate in “shaping the political will of the people
through the dissemination of information on political, social and economic
programmes of a national character,” But perhaps even more noteworthy, Article
35(2) of the 1991 Constitution provides that:
“ The internal organization of a political party shall conform to democratic
principles, and its aims, objectives, purposes and programmes shall not
contravene, or be inconsistent with, any provisions of this Constitution.”
Having examined the international and national legal frameworks for the
promotion of internal party democracy, we shall now turn attention to the
provisions available within the extant 11th August 2020 Constitution of the
SLPP.
III. Legal Framework for the Nurturing of Internal Democracy in the SLPP
At their 68th National Delegates Conference held in Freetown from 6 - 8 December
2019, members of the SLPP unanimously approved and adopted a revised
Constitution which, by law, became operational on 11th August 2020. Among other
things, the new Constitution provides for the creation of two autonomous Councils –
the Young Generation and the Women’s Councils. The Constitution also separated
(into two) the hitherto fused position of National Party Chairman & Leader, and
elected President Dr. Julius Maada Bio and Vice President Dr. Mohamed Juldeh Jalloh
as National Party Leader and Deputy National Party Leader respectively. Whereas
most party loyalists were quick to describe these constitutional developments as
“progressive,” some public policy and good governance experts have criticised the
President’s assumption of the National Leadership of his party as a textbook example
of concentration of powers in one person and democratic erosion in the SLPP. They
argue that the act only renders the Presidency too powerful and contributes to the
shrinking of the democratic space within the “grand old party.” The doctrine of
Constitutionalism, they further argue, provides that democratic and accountable
government must be coupled with clearly defined limits on the powers of the
executive.
Beyond the above, however, it is submitted that the August 2020 Constitution of the
Sierra Leone People’s Party strongly affirms the party’s commitment to the principles
of constitutional democracy. For one of the clear objectives of the party, as recorded
in Article 1(C)(3) of the Constitution, is to:
“uphold and respect the core values of the rule of law, fundamental human rights,
social justice, participatory democracy and other democratic values, institutions
and practices in Sierra Leone as essential prerequisites of good governance”.
Regarding the general direction and control of the Party in the discharge of its
functions, Article 4A of the Constitution establishes the “National Delegates
Conference” as “the supreme governing and policy-making body of the Party.”
Accordingly, in a public notice dated 23rd November 2021, the party’s Secretary
General, Mr. Umaru Napoleon Koroma, reminded all contestants for the different
positions of “National Officers” that they must comply with the eligibility criterion
set out in Article 17 of the August 2020 SLPP Constitution (which Article provides that all candidates for National Officer positions must be “fully paid-up members” of the party). Likewise, in a memo dated 2nd December 2021, the Sengeh-led IEMOC
released guidelines for the re-run of the annulled National Women’s Leader election
in which they emphasized (and rightly so) compliance with the delegate eligibility
criteria that are set out in Articles 4B and 14C of the August 2020 SLPP Constitution.
IV. Loud Silence Over Article 4(F)(2) of the SLPP Constitution: Why?
Whereas references to the above sections of the SLPP Constitution may seem to
suggest the party’s commitment to “uphold and respect” their Constitution, some
analysts are so far not impressed. They have wondered why both the Secretary
General (a legal practitioner of no mean standing) and the highly informed members
of IEMOC have either remained silent, or decided to violate the equally-important
constitutional requirement for persons contesting as “National Officers” in Article
4(F)(2) of the August 2020 Constitution. Under the rubric “Guidelines For Elections
At The National Party Conference,” Article 4(F)(2) expressly provides that:
“All aspirants for elections at the Conference, other than those for the
Leader and [Deputy] Leader shall seek nomination one (1) month in
advance of those elections through a procedure set up by the NEC”.
Unfortunately, Clause 2, section 15 of the party’s gazetted “Rules and
Regulations for the Conduct of All Executive Elections” of March 2021 seems to
be in conflict with Article 4(F)(2) of the August 2020 Constitution. The said rule
allows for the nomination of candidates to occur “where the elections take
place”. Whatever that means is not so clear to the author. However, by the
operation of the well-established principle of hierarchy of laws, it is argued that
the party’s August 2020 Constitution must take precedence over any other
subsidiary instrument within the party, including its “Rules and Regulations” of
March 2021.
Since it is now less than one month to the long-awaited National Delegates Conference (scheduled to take place from the 22-23 December 2021), one would have reasonably expected either IEMOC or the Party’s Secretariat to publish the names of all those “National Officer” candidates that have satisfied the one-month nomination requirement as provided under Article 4(F)(2) of the Constitution, or, alternatively, provide clarity on the party’s position on Article 4(F)(2). Their continued “loud silence” over this apparent constitutional breach has therefore provoked more
questions than answers: Could it be a deliberate ploy to protect certain individuals
who are already presenting themselves as aspirants for “National Officer” positions
when in fact they have not satisfied the one-month nomination requirement? Could it be an attempt to leave the political room wide open for new entrants to join the race even when they may be constitutionally ineligible to contest at this year’s National Delegates Conference? Or, could it be a genuine oversight on the part of both the Secretary General and IEMOC?
Assuming the latter explanation were the case, it also begs further questions: How
could the Secretary General have reminded all contestants about their constitutional
obligation under Article 17(on financial commitments) without doing the same for
their equally-important procedural obligation under Article 4(F)(2) (on the one-month nomination period)? How could the highly intelligent Chairman of IEMOC, in his memo to the Secretary General dated 3rd December 2021, have invoked Article 4(B) of the Constitution (regarding who qualifies as a delegate to the National Delegates Conference) without noticing Article 4(F)(2) of the same constitution (regarding the one-month nomination requirement for national officer candidates)? Does this not remind one of the Latin Maxim Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius (The mention of one is the exclusion of another)?
V. The Road to the National Delegates Conference 2021: A Four-Point Proposal
to David Sengeh’s IEMOC
The re-run of the National Women’s Leader election that took place in Freetown on
Thursday 2nd December 2021 has been generally described as free, fair and credible.
It ended with Madam Hawa Foray from Kenema District emerging victorious (with
173 votes), defeating her challengers Madam Fatmata Sawaneh and Madam Fatmata
Bockarie who polled 124 and 15 votes respectively. The transparency displayed by
Sengeh’s IEMOC has been widely applauded across the country. Since then, IEMOC
has enjoyed increased public trust and confidence, especially with the recent
publication of the provisional National Delegates list, and their strict insistence on
compliance with the party’s August 2020 Constitution in the determination of
legitimate delegates. For these steps alone, IEMOC deserves some credit. However, as the race for the highest price on offer - the position of National Chairman of the SLPP
– tightens up, many are now asking: Can David Sengeh’s IEMOC Pass the Test? Can they superintend over a free, fair and credible electoral process? Can they produce a
democratically elected National Chairman for the governing SLPP on 23rd December
2021? Well, as they say, the sweetness of the pudding is in the eating. We’re watching!!
Meanwhile, as a Sierra Leonean, a constitutional law scholar, and a good governance
and public policy analyst, let me conclude by proffering the following suggestions for
the consideration of the Sengeh-led IEMOC:
First, immediately publish the list of all duly nominated candidates for the different
National Officer positions consistent with Article 4(F)(2) of the August 2020
Constitution of the SLPP. The party should now move away from the archaic system
of delegates standing up in the full view of everyone and nominating candidates of
their choice on the day of the conference itself. Such a system only allows for increased tension and political victimization of voters.
Second, in consultation with the duly nominated candidates, prepare and publish a
Code of Conduct for all candidates, delegates, and party members who may be
attending the National Delegates Conference in Bo. Candidates and delegates must
re-commit themselves to practise a politics of decency, and to scrupulously avoid any
corrupt practices and offences, including vote-buying, impersonation of voters,
canvassing on the day of the elections, and personal attacks against opposing
candidates and members.
Third, organise debates among the aspirants for the different national officer
positions, especially those contending for the prestigious position of National Party
Chairman. This is to encourage free and open discussions on the policy positions and
preferences of rival candidates, and to provide delegates and members of the broader
public with adequate information on which to make informed decisions.
Lastly, embark on massive public education to popularise the Code of Conduct for the National Delegates Conference. Continued confidence in the integrity of the electoral process requires efficient and accountable administration of the entire process. This means that each candidate and member of the party must have reasonable assurances that their rivals have played by the rules. Ordinary voters and the press also need to be confident of this.
VI. Conclusion
To sum up, I would like to remind IEMOC that the overarching objective of democracy is that the people should have the right to choose, and elections are the central representative institution that forms a link between the people and their
representatives. It is the electoral connection that makes governments democratic, and political parties have a crucial role to play in that direction. And if political parties in Sierra Leone are to succeed in discharging their constitutional mandate of “shaping the political will of the people,” then the democratic process must start within the internal structures of the parties themselves. Political parties must function as “schools of democracy”. As they old saying goes, charity begins at home. Legal scholars would say: Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet (No one can give that he has not)
About the Author
Owen M.M. KaiCombey (photo) is the 2018 Global Undergraduate Awards Winner in Law. He is currently a PhD Candidate and Hardiman Scholar at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, School of Law, National University of Ireland Galway (NUIG). He holds a Bachelor of Laws (with Hons) Degree from the University of Liverpool, UK; a Master of Arts in International Relations from the International University of Japan; a Master of Arts in Gender Studies from Fourah Bay College, University of Sierra
Leone; and a Bachelor of Arts in English Language and Political Science from the latter institution.
Previously, he served as a Lecturer at the Department of Leadership and Governance, Institute of Public Administration and Management; Department of English, Fourah Bay College; and Department of Language Studies at the former Milton Margai College of Education and Technology (MMCE&T).
Comments