Skip to main content

How the Legal Aid Board is dealing with issues outside its mandate



Michael, 20 is one of over seven hundred beneficiaries of legal aid in 2016. Michael’s case is unique. He is the second known beneficiary of the scheme to reoffend.
The first known case is Amidu Bangura, 35.  He was charged with wounding with intent in June 2006 and spent nearly ten years on remand before the Legal Aid Board secured his discharge for want of prosecution on 30 March 2016.  Amidu reoffended and was arrested in June 2016 and detained at the Pademba Road Correctional Center for involving in a fight which left the other party sustaining serious injuries.
In this instance, Amidu was not a priority to the Board because legal assistance is provided on a first come first serve basis. This means he has to wait until the hundreds of remand detainees needing legal aid are served first.   But as the heavens could have it, the police did not press charges against him.
Michael was a test case for the Board. This is because the Board has to deal with an issue outside its mandate. Even though, this is not the first time the Board has had to go beyond its mandate to help beneficiaries, Michael’s case is desperate. He is proving to be the most serious challenge for the Board because attempts at finding a solution to his homelessness have so far not been successful.
The Board secured Michael’s discharge after spending nearly one year on remand at the Pademba Road Correctional Center. When he was discharged for want of prosecution in February 2016 he had no home to return to. Neither the aunt he was staying with at Benjamin Lane on Regent Road nor any other member of the family would accept him. They have a strong reason for this as Michael fell foul of the law as a result of wounding with intent his own grandmother in February 2015.
Michael maintains he was driven from home by his aunt because of allegations that were made against him. He denies the allegations but would not be drawn into the details.
Michael was sleeping rough on the streets of Lumley following his discharge in February 2016. He was arrested on July 24 for loitering on the streets of Lumley and was consequently taken to the Lumley Police Station. His case was charged to court and remanded at the Pademba Road Correctional Center.  He pleaded guilty to the charge and was released by Magistrate Tonia Bawah Bannet on his second appearance on 28 July 2016.
Michael maintains his innocence even though he pleaded guilty to the charge in court. He said he was homeless at the time of his arrest and maintains he may not have been arrested and charged with loitering if he had a home.   
Michael was in no celebratory mood when he appeared at the offices of the Board immediately following his discharge. He was very upfront with his plight when he met the Executive Director of the Board, Ms. Fatmata Claire Carlton-Hanciles. He told her he needs a place to lay his head. This is because the homelessness which landed him into trouble has not gone away. There is a real possibility, he could be arrested again for loitering, if he continues to be homeless.
Under normal circumstances, you would expect the Executive Director of the Board or any other staff to give Michael a lecture on the mandate of the Board which in this case does not include providing or helping beneficiaries of the scheme with accommodation before sending him away.
But it would be a mistake to assume, Michael like other beneficiaries does not understand the mandate of the Board. Michael spent nearly a year on remand at the Pademba Road Correctional Center where knowledge of the mandate of the Board is very high. This is because nearly all the beneficiaries of the Board since it started operations have come from there. Also, the Board’s paralegal makes frequent visits to assess those needing legal aid. Also, remand detainees have been sending letters highlighting their situation to legal aid lawyers through inmates attending trial.
The reason for this could be, they find in the Board a credible organization they could rely upon with solving their problems. There is this belief among beneficiaries that the Board could also delivers on issues outside its mandate.
So, on the instructions of the Executive Director, Mohamed Alpha Jalloh contacted Michael’s aunty who has had about the Board and impressed with its work. However, the aunty erupted into a feat of rage upon mention of Michael’s name. She rejected upfront any suggestion of accepting him back home. This was followed by a visit to the aunt on Benjamin Lane who refused to bulge.  
But with an Executive Director who will not give up, the other members of the family have been identified with a view to reconciling them with Michael and then have one of them take him into their home. 
But Michael is not the first to seek help which falls outside the mandate of the Board. It happens all the time either at outreach events or during pre-discharge counselling sessions. And because, it has long dawned on the Board that the issue is not about beneficiaries not understanding the mandate of the Board – which they do – it is about they looking for a credible institution for help and finding one in the Board.
Zainu Deen demanded compensation from the Executive Director, Ms. Carlton-Hanciles after the Board secured his discharge on 25 July 2016. ‘You should compensate me for the time I have spent at the Pademba Road Correctional Center on remand. I am innocent and I am now returning home a sick man,’ he demanded.
Zainu had spent nearly a year on remand at the Pademba Road Correction Center and was not prepared to be educated on the mandate of the scheme. As far as he is concerned the Board had not done enough for him.
Also, outreach events whether in Waterloo in the Western Rural District or Fourah Bay in the East, have been dominated by issues outside the mandate of the Board. This includes accommodation, employment, compensation, medical and acceptance into mainstream society.  This is why over the past couple of months the Board has been taking concrete steps to address these issues.
The partnership between the Board and the Sierra Leone Motor Driver Union has ensured that hundreds of beneficiaries of the Board are provided with free transportation to their respectively home communities upcountry; without which, most if not all, would have been stranded and become homeless in the capital Freetown.
Also, the Board has struck a partnership with the National Farmers Federation to assist with reintegrating its beneficiaries – remand detainees - and ex-convicts by providing them with employment in agriculture.  The partnership was struck following a meeting with the executive of the Federation in July 2016. For this cropping season, the Federation will provide job for 25 to 30 ex-remand beneficiaries of the Board. This will double or triple at the next planting season. What is more, they will be provided with accommodation and feeding.
The Board has been referring sick discharged remand detainees to hospital for free medical care. The Board hopes to concretize the arrangement with a partnership agreement with the Chief Medical Officer.
The Board is working with civil society organizations to facilitate the smooth return of release beneficiaries ex-convict into mainstream society. Issues of discrimination against their beneficiaries and their legal implications are discussed at community outreach events and on radio programmes.


By Joseph Dumbuya

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Legal Aid partners adopt Bye-Laws for Citizens Advisory Bureau

Members of the Citizens Advisory Bureau Working Committee have adopted the Bye-Laws for the soon-to-established Citizens Advisory Bureau (CAB) at a meeting at the AFRICELL Office on Bathurst Street in Freetown on Tuesday. The Committee was put together at a stakeholders’ workshop on June 9 at the Atlantic Hall of the National Stadium Hostels to educate and discuss ideas about the Bureau which will offer Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation and Referral services in the community.  The meeting was convened under the auspices of the Sierra Leone Legal Aid Board. It attracted twelve Tribal Headmen from the Western Area, Councilors from the Western Area Urban and Rural District Councils and representatives of the Sierra Leone Police, the Sierra Leone Correctional Service, National Youth Commission and civil society groups. The Consultant for the meeting, Madam Memunata Pratt from the Department of Peace and Conflict Studies, Fourah Bay College led the discussions on the d

Introduction to the Sierra Leone Legal Aid Board

Sierra Leone Legal Aid Board  Introduction Access to a well-funded legal aid scheme is key to the attainment of justice for the poor, marginalized and disadvantaged, though in some circumstances other categories of highly placed persons or professional may require it. Globally many countries around the world have invested in programs and interventions on providing free legal aid services to its citizens. The UN member states have thus accepted that legal aid schemes must not only be optional but should be a key component of national legal justice systems. The UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in Vienna adopted a resolution on "access to legal aid in criminal justice systems". The resolution adopts a set of "Principles and Guidelines" designed to ensure that access to legal information, advice and assistance is available to all through the provision of legal aid—thus realizing rights for the poor and marginalized and entrenching one

Legal Aid secures the discharge of Port Loko child

Legal Aid secures the discharge of Port Loko child The Sierra Leone Legal Aid Board has secured the discharge of a fourteen (14) year school boy from Port Loko. The boy was arrested on 10 August 2016 for house breaking. He was kept in police cell for twenty days before the matter was charged to court. He spent time on remand at the Prison in Port Loko before the Magistrate transferred his case to the juvenile court in Freetown on September 3. Whilst in Freetown, he was remanded at the Dems Juvenile Home in Kingtom. Lawyer for the Legal Aid Board, Joel Deen-Tarawally represented him in Court. He made an application for the matter to be discharged for want of prosecution pursuant to Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1965. He told the court that the complainant had appeared in court once despite several adjournments. He argued that it is unfair to continue to keep the offender in detention in a matter the complainant has not taken seriously. The applica