In a message dated 1/31/2007 8:18:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, amadu.massally@gmail.com writes:
Is Peter Tucker the right man to lead this exercise? If so, would he ensure the panel seriously consider implementing modern thinking (which can be a vague term) and economical and social changes (land tenure, taxation, property rights, etc?) to the citizenry of Sierra Leone.
Amadu:
You asked me the above question just over two months ago. You may remember my following answer:
In a message dated 2/2/2007 6:49:13 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, MohmJ@aol.com writes:
Your question quoted above is a cogent one. It can be conclusively answered only by the actual results produced by the constitutional review commission that Mr. Tucker heads. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SALONEDiscussion/message/2347
Now that the commission Dr. Tucker heads has reportedly produced its report, it is time to answer your question. To do so validly, let us proceed to the recommendations of the report and Dr. Tucker's justification of the proposed amendments to SL's 1991 constitution:
Speaking to Awoko at the British Council Thursday Dr Peter Tucker defended the accusations
that the amendments were being rushed through saying "There is no constitution of Sierra Leone that I know of which has taken longer than three months to discuss, and ours is taking about four months."
MY RESPONSE #1: Dr. Tucker's accusers echo the very same concern that I expressed to you here when I cautioned against rushing into a constitution change, namely: "Is the eve of national elections the proper time for the lame duck President Tejan Kabbah's SLPP government to launch a review of the constitution of SL?" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SALONEDiscussion/message/2347
Dr. Tucker's defense is easily rebutted: The fact that past constitutional reviews have taken no "longer than three months to discuss" is not a reason for continuing to short-circuit a fundamental constitutional process. On the contrary, the predictable failure of those constitutional reforms make the case for a far more serious effort -- not one, like Dr. Tucker's commission's, which lasted merely about a month longer.
On the question of whether the National Electoral Commission (NEC) will be able to conduct a referendum along with the elections slated for July 28, Dr Tucker said "I think they should be able to but it is left to them but my view is that it can be done" adding that "the matter is between government and NEC."
MY RESPONSE #2: Since Dr. Tucker believes that a referendum can be conducted simultaneously with the imminent elections, he is obligated to duly set forth precisely how it can be done given the obvious resource constraint which he himself explicitly acknowledged when he stated: "they don't have to be held together if we can find money to do them separately so if the resources are available another date could be fixed"
Dr. Tucker's statement begs an obvious question that the SL journalist failed to ask him and which also he failed to answer, namely: If Dr. Tucker does not know whether the money needed to conduct a referendum simultaneously with the elections is available, how does he know that it can be done?
Questioned about the justification for a second chamber in parliament, Dr Tucker explained that "on the first occasion it was really not discussed it was rejected by cabinet and so we don't think that the people rejected it and so we think we should try again to bring it in."
MY RESPONSE #3: Even though Dr. Tucker apparently failed to notice it, his above-quoted statement provides another reason for a much more thorough approach to the effort to review the constitution than in the past. That he is reduced to guessing about the intentions of the population regarding the last constitutional review speaks volumes about the unreliability of the past effort. It is that realization that should impel him to abandon his current effort to unwittingly replicate the errors that marred the last such attempted reform.
He explained further that "in most other commonwealth countries where you have separation of powers they have this second chamber which helps to moderate it's a kind of check and balance situation if we have a group of experienced people in administration, religion Paramount Chiefs sitting there they are more likely to moderate any excesses coming from the House of Representatives by advice by comment, than it is now."
MY RESPONSE #4: What Dr. Tucker fails to realize is that SL currently is unlike most Commonwealth (or, indeed, other) countries -- its SLPP government can not provide any of the basic services that the governments of most commonwealth and other countries readily provide to their citizens, such as reliable electricity, water, sanitation and medical services. Therefore, it is inappropriate to seek to justify a second chamber of parliament on the ground that other commonwealth countries have it, as Dr. Tucker erroneously purports to do. The more relevant question is whether this is an effective and efficient policy given the fact that the government of SL, unlike those of other commonwealth countries, has failed to meet the minimal expectations of a government in any country -- providing basic services to its citizens to enable them to avoid daily deprivations of electricity, water, sanitation and medical services?
The answer to that question is clearly in the negative. There are already existing in the constitution of SL provisions for providing some checks and balances in government. They are found in the separation of powers among the judiciary, the executive and the legislature. And then there is the press. Most of all, there is the electorate. The checks and balances underlying this system of separartion of powers will be enhanced by strengthening the powers of the respective branches of government to safeguard their constitutional powers to act in proper restraint and balance of the other branches -- not by expanding the legislature, as Dr. Tucker's commission proposes.
The issue of extending the immunity for the President to life is not in the Preliminary report given to journalists, though reports say the political parties have the same document where it is inserted.
MY RESPONSE #5: What Dr. Tucker proposes violates the most basic tenet of the law in civilized countries -- that no man is above the law. Whereas it is reasonable for presidents to be shielded from prosecution for lawful actions pursuant to their duties as president while they are in office, there is no basis for doing so after they leave office. There is even less reason to continue to shield any president from the law for the rest of his or her life.
Accordingly, the conclusion is inescapable that proposing such a patently immoral policy for inclusion in our country's constitution validates the concern that I had expressed here thus:
"Even then, a change should be carefully contemplated before its implementation. It should also be free from any insidious motives, such as political self-interest. Yet, sadly, that has been the case in our country. For example, it was evident in the 1971 republican constitution that was shamelessly championed by some of SL's finest legal minds, under the characteristic unpatriotic cheerleading of its greatest beneficiary -- former President Siaka Stevens of the APC."
I hope the above information makes clear the reason why many different civil society proponents, including myself, opposed Dr. Tucker's quest to revise our country's constitution on the eve of the impending elections when it was announced a few months ago. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SALONEDiscussion/message/2355
Best regards,
Moh'm
--- In SALONEDiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "onemohm" <MohmJ@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> In a message dated 1/31/2007 8:18:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> amadu.massally@... writes:
> Is Peter Tucker the right man to lead this exercise? If so, would he
> ensure the panel seriously consider implementing modern thinking (which
> can be a vague term) and economical and social changes (land tenure,
> taxation, property rights, etc?) to the citizenry of Sierra Leone.
> Amadu: I would like to join you in again commending our
> indefatigable Daphne Sawyerr-Dunn for her longstanding, unmatched
> efforts at keeping us abreast of developments affecting our homeland.
> As usual, you are at the forefront of action (in contrast to mere words)
> aimed at impacting, for the better, the lives of millions of our fellow
> S/Leoneans. In my humble opinion, that does not make you a "Borbor Pain"
> (someone who craves pain), as you characteristically, self-deprecatingly
> referred to yourself. On the contrary, it makes you what I have
> suggested, many times here, you have admirably shown yourself to be -- a
> dedicated, patriotic S/Leonean. Your question quoted above is a
> cogent one. It can be conclusively answered only by the actual results
> produced by the constitutional review commission that Mr. Tucker heads.
> However, I suggest that there is a much more fundamental question that
> begs for an answer, namely: Is the eve of national elections the
> proper time for the lame duck President Tejan Kabbah's SLPP government
> to launch a review of the constitution of SL? There are many people of
> goodwill, including well-meaning S/Leoneans, who answer that question in
> the negative. In addition, foreign donors who would be called upon to
> fund nationwide plebiscites such as the proposed referendum on a new
> constitution -- due to the pauperous state of the SL treasury -- have
> already expressed grave concerns about the wisdom of the SL government's
> insistence on changing SL's constitution only a few months before
> national elections. In particular, the U.S. ambassador to SL, Thomas
> Hull, is on record as having expressed such misgivings. There are
> additional reasons, beyond timing, for objecting to the current
> constitutional review commission's work. Primary among those is that, by
> its very nature, a constitution is supposed to be a device that largely
> withstands the test of time. Consequently, changing it should be a rare
> occurrence, rather than the much too frequent exercise it has become in
> post-independent SL. Even then, a change should be carefully
> contemplated before its implementation. It should also be free from any
> insidious motives, such as political self-interest. Yet, sadly, that has
> been the case in our country. For example, it was evident in the 1971
> republican constitution that was shamelessly championed by some of SL's
> finest legal minds, under the characteristic unpatriotic cheerleading of
> its greatest beneficiary -- former President Siaka Stevens of the APC.
> Moreover, any change in the constitution should be the product of a
> thorough review involving every interested party. At a minimum, that
> should entail methodically obtaining testimony from all interested
> parties in each and every region of our country, holding debates on the
> merits of any proposed changes to the constitution, including obtaining
> the opinions of legal scholars, explaining the proposed changes to the
> public, and only then, but not before, presenting them for a vote in a
> referendum. In my humble opinion, the timetable set by the Peter Tucker
> commission does not provide sufficient time for all of those important
> steps to be reasonably completed. Accordingly, rather than embracing
> the SL government's ill-advised initiative by participating in it, we
> should be advocating its abandonment. In its replacement, we should urge
> the government to dedicate the resources it plans to expend on the
> constitutional review exercise towards a comprehensive, non-partisan
> voter education and registration program that should hopefully guarantee
> that the results of the July elections would reflect the free and
> informed consent of the S/Leonean electorate. That would be a much
> more significant contribution by the SL government to the patriotic goal
> of good governance than its hastily cobbled and dubiously motivated
> quest to change our country's constitution on the eve of the very
> important impending national elections. Kind regards, Moh'm
>
>
>
>
> --- In SALONEDiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "Amadu Massally"
> amadu.massally@ wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Daphne for this very important information. I am glad I went
> back
> > to it as I was derailed yesterday and could have let it slip through
> the
> > cracks of my busy Google Mail box. As if I did not learn yesterday
> that
> > Sierra Leoneans cannot collaborate. Actually I did learn that we can,
> and
> > that is why I am back with more opportunity to prove to ourselves that
> we
> > can. Maybe we just have to find the right chemistry. If we are to only
> > adjust our egos a bit for example, and focus our eyes on the BIG
> prize, we
> > would be just fine. We were almost there in unison on the DFID/EC
> Strategy
> > Paper (but still we submitted our documents on time and if we here
> back from
> > them we will let you know).
> >
> > My comments are entered underneath the relevant pieces in the article
> that
> > was sent to us by our witty news finder, Daphne Sawyerr-Dunn. Let me
> know
> > what you think?
> >
> > Peter Tucker said the review of the constitution is starting "within
> days
> > ... so as to bring it up-to-date with modern thinking and economical
> and
> > social changes that have taken place since 1991."
> >
> > Is Peter Tucker the right man to lead this exercise? If so, would he
> ensure
> > the panel seriously consider implementing modern thinking (which can
> be a
> > vague term) and economical and social changes (land tenure, taxation,
> > property rights, etc?) to the citizenry of Sierra Leone.
> >
> > We are going to review the entire constitution," Tucker told a news
> > conference, adding the panel will gather public opinions from across
> the
> > west African country still recovering from a 10-year brutal civil war.
> >
> > Would the panel also solicit information from the Diaspora? If so, how
> > would this be done? Is it okay for someone (or better, an
> organization) to
> > coordinate the submission of such public opinions from the Diaspora?
> Or
> > should we just go 'monkey-man-duniya' style (every one for himself /
> > herself)? I am sure everyone knows what I prefer! So with that said, I
> > will bring information back as to the medium we will connect with the
> panel
> > following the relevant protocol if the Diaspora thinks it makes sense?
> You
> > can say I am the male version of Helen Keller as in: *"I am only one,
> but
> > still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something;
> And
> > because I cannot do everything I will not refuse to do the something
> that I
> > can do." *And I am not trying to brag either. I am just making
> sacrifices
> > for my country. Why? Because some of us have to be around to bring
> > positive change to S/L! No doubt!
> >
> > Tucker, formerly head of Britain's now defunct race relations board,
> said
> > the panel plans to finish its task by April to allow time for the
> amended
> > document to be put to the vote in a referendum.
> >
> > How would the average Sierra Leone understand what it is being voted
> on in a
> > referendum? Is it the responsibility of government or civil society to
> > mobilize voters to a national referendum? Who would explain the ills
> of the
> > current land tenure system, without using the same strategies that
> they were
> > created around in the first place? If it is left up to government,
> what are
> > the rules of engagement to ascertain the activities to educate on the
> issues
> > will be free and fair? What role would the political parties play in
> > effecting voter turn out to encourage maximum participation?
> >
> > I really am appealing again to Sierra Leoneans in the Diaspora and at
> home
> > to get involved in this process. Some of us have been on Internet
> forums
> > for years and years and have passionately discussed issues that are
> very
> > relevant to the constitution of Sierra Leone. Well here is that
> opportunity
> > to strut your stuff
Even if we do not do a collective response,
> and I am
> > begging for one, we can do so individually at a minimum. So get
> involved
> >
> > If anyone knows how to get to Peter Tucker and the panel can they
> please let
> > us know? Obai Taylor-Kamara, could I rely on you to help us out, in
> the
> > interest of YOUR country? Thanks bra, if you accept!
> >
> > I would like to solicit feedback from other compatriots. What do you
> guys
> > think?
> >
> > Borbor Pain - I keep coming back for more...
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Amadu Massally
> >
> >
> > On 1/30/07, dsawyerrdunn@ dsawyerrdunn@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > SLeone to embark on constitutional reform ahead of elections
> > >
> > > 30 January 2007
> > >
> > > 20:06 GMT
> > >
> > > Agence France Presse
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > FREETOWN, Jan 30, 2007 (AFP) --
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A government-appointed panel is to start a constitutional review in
> > > post-war Sierra Leone less than six months before general elections
> slated
> > > for July, its chairman said Tuesday.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter Tucker said the review of the constitution is starting "within
> days
> > > ... so as to bring it up-to-date with modern thinking and economical
> and
> > > social changes that have taken place since 1991."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sierra Leone has set July 28, 2007, for presidential and legislative
> polls
> > > expected to serve as a crucial test of its democratic credentials
> and
> > > establish whether the country is on the road to full recovery.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "We are going to review the entire constitution," Tucker told a news
> > > conference, adding the panel will gather public opinions from across
> the
> > > west African country still recovering from a 10-year brutal civil
> war.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tucker, formerly head of Britain's now defunct race relations board,
> said
> > > the panel plans to finish its task by April to allow time for the
> amended
> > > document to be put to the vote in a referendum.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The proposed referendum is to take place at the same time as the
> general
> > > elections in July.
> > >
> > > Government said the reforms will not affect the upcoming elections.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The government last year set up a commission to critically assess
> the
> > > constitution under which two previous elections have been held.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The current constitution took effect in 1991, the year Sierra Leone
> > > plunged into a decade of brutal civil war in which about 200,000
> people
> > > died.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The 35 commission members are drawn from civil rights organisations,
> > > students groups, the bar, professional associations and grassroots
> > > groupings.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > "There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I
> dream
> > of things that never were, and ask why not."
> >
> > ~ Robert F. Kennedy
> >
>