Over 400 Senior Staff to get benefits … Shandong, Labour Ministry agree

A successful meeting held in the Conference Room of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security ended up in joy and laughter after Shandong Steel Mining Company reached an agreement with the Ministry of Labour to pay aggrieved Senior Staff benefits. The aggrieved senior staff had stormed the Ministry’s compound to not only protest for their entitlement but also wait for a conclusive outcome of a meeting that was witnessed by their representatives.

A letter addressed to the Managing Director of Shandong Steel Company from the Ministry of Labour dated 7th May 2018; quoted a memorandum from the Office of the President dated 30th April 2018, instructing the ministry to investigate the redundancy of Senior Employees of the company.

“We have successfully resolved several issues that emanated on the payment of end of service benefits. We realize that there were mistakes in calculations and several misconceptions sprang up. But we are happy that the Ministry of Labour intervened at the right time to settle our issues with the Senior Employees,” Shandong’s Official says noting that the company is now on a sound footing to meet its financial obligation as required by law.

Joseph Moy Kamara, a Senior Staff Shandong said they are not in any way at war with the Chinese Company, but rather they want their entitlement to be paid to enable them to move on with their lives. “We want them to follow international best practices and give us a date as to when and how we are going to get our end of service benefit,” Kamara remarked.

Another aggrieved Senior Staff, Peter Abraham, said: “We are not pushing anything against company rules; rather we want our end of service benefit”.

The company states that one of the most challenging aspects relating to Phase 1 of the project was logistics; however, Phase two is not expected to face the same challenge. If Shandong approves the company will invest an additional $ 1.5BL for its phase two operation to be spent on mines and infrastructure development and it has invested $2.1Billion already in its phase one project. The company hopes to continue in meeting its financial obligations to its staff, community, and the nation.

The Government of Sierra Leone has however committed itself to support all stages of the Chinese steelmaker’s operations in Sierra Leone and described its operation as a positive turning point in the country’s quest for economic development.

Being the largest employer in Sierra Leone, Shandong Steel hopes to continue in that as it plans to employ over thirty thousand workers in the second Phase of its operations.

Shandong Iron and Steel Group Co. Ltd. is a Chinese state-owned enterprise, established in March 2008 with its Jinan based Iron & Steel Company Ltd. It is engaged in the smelting, processing, and sale of steel products.

It acquired in 2015, African Minerals Ltd’s 75% stake in the Tonkolili Iron Ore mine, eventually giving it 100% ownership of Tonkolili Iron Ore (SL) Limited.

It has over the years being important in Sierra Leone, serving as a major player in the country’s economy, and export earnings. It hopes to continue playing it good role in Sierra Leone’s economic growth.

By 2015, Shandong’s provincial GDP contribution was 6.3 trillion Yuan, making it the third largest economy in China.

IS CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT A PENAL OFFENCE? ML Deen Rogers Senior Legislative Officer Parliament of Sierra Leone mldrogers@parliament.gov.sl

 

In the lifespan of every Parliament there is always a strange happening or moment. For the Fifth Parliament of the Second Republic, this moment has come too soon – too soon as in the ninth month of its proclamation. Without one iota of doubt, the contempt proceedings against Dr. James Vibbi, the Executive Chairman of Produce Monitoring Board on Thursday 17^th January, 2019 will enter the Hansard of the Fifth Parliament as a moment when the Bar of the House was confronted with a bizarre happening. Chroniclers of parliamentary events would be tempted to say that the contempt proceedings for that day tested the resolve and the penal jurisdiction of the House.

The question on the lips of many is: does Parliament have the power to punish for Contempt? A big YES to this question is the purpose of this article. Contempt of Parliament is a matter of parliamentary privilege. To this end, Section 95 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Act No.6 of 1991) states:

Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer thereof in the discharge of his duties or affronts the dignity of Parliament, or which tends either directly or indirectly to produce such a result shall be a contempt of Parliament

Sir Thomas Erskine May’s Treatise of Law, Privilege, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament describe parliamentary privilege thus:

The sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals

The collective privilege espoused by Erskine May gives Parliament a quasi-judicial or penal jurisdiction to punish or discipline persons guilty of contempt. In support of May’s citation, Section 96 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Act No.6 of 1991) states:

Where an act or omission which constitutes contempt of parliament is an offence under the criminal law, the exercise by Parliament of the power to punish for contempt shall not be a bar to the institution of proceedings under the criminal law

Since the restoration of democracy in 1996, the Parliament of Sierra Leone has found a number of its members, public officials and private individuals in contempt of the House. Dr. Vibbi’s contempt proceedings is not the first contempt proceedings of the House but in several respects, this particular one has unique characteristics. On Tuesday 15^th January, 2019, Parliament summoned Dr. Vibbi to appear at the Bar of the House to answer to allegations levelled against him by Hon. Veronica K. Sesay, Chairperson of the Parliamentary Oversight Committee on Trade and Industry. Dr. Vibbi apologized to the entire membership of the House for discourtesy and calculated infraction on the privilege of a Member of the House. The Hon. Speaker ordered that for Dr. Vibbi to purge himself of the contempt, he should ensure the following:

Write a letter of apology to Hon. Veronica K. Sesay and by extension to the membership of the entire House

Withdraw the discourteous letter of complaint written against Hon. Veronica K. Sesay and

Re-instate the officers he had suspended from duty pending the re- constitution of the Produce and Monitoring Board as provided for in Section 3 of the 2013 Act. He was required to adhere to this ruling not later than 16^th January, 2019 at 10am prompt.

Parliament did not order Dr. Vibbi, who was an appointee of the Executive and approved by the very House he was arraigned before, to act unlawfully; but in a web of interrelated issues, he was merely asked to re-instate officers he had summarily suspended or dismissed. During the contempt proceedings, it became very clear that Dr. Vibbi’s action in suspending or dismissing the officers was in contravention of both the Act that created the Agency itself and the directives of the supervisory Ministry (Ministry of Trade and Industry).

Based on the earlier advice given by the supervisory Ministry and in tandem with the interpellation powers of Parliament, the House adjudged that the Executive Chairman had acted unilaterally. Dr. Vibbi’s adamant mannerism and his lack of basic respect and administrative knowledge in public sector management warranted the Speaker’s ruling of 17^th January, 2019. The House was unanimous in its view that his action before the House was prima facie in contempt in the face of Parliament. And by law, Parliament has the power to punish contempt in its face which is a criminal offence in Sierra Leone.

Dr. Abdulai O. Conteh in his Essay on the Sierra Leone Constitution, 1991 states that in law, there are two kinds of contempt: criminal contempt or contempt in the face and civil contempt or contempt not in the face. He further agrees that “contempt” whether of court or of Parliament is to ensure not only the dignity and proper functioning of the body concerned but also to ensure compliance with orders and decisions given (p51). As one of the drafters of the 1991 constitution, he agrees that Sections 95 and 96 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Act No. 6 of 1991) are draconian which in his opinion is contrary to the time-honoured maxim – Nemo juex in re sua causa – No one should be a judge in his own court. Nevertheless, Dr. Conteh submits that it is reasonable and proper for Parliament to have powers to deal with, even summarily, any behaviour that affronts the dignity of the House. The event of 17^th January, 2019 was one such event.

What is clear in all of these is the fact that the role of Parliament is political and understanding the principle of Separation of Powers vis-a-vis Checks and Balances which speaks to that role is fundamental. It is a considered element in the principle of Checks and Balances that each branch of government is subject to a number of restraints by the other branches – meaning power must be used to offset power. That is why any legal opinion expressed on this matter would suggest the infringement on the fundamental rights of the contemnor, the use of excessive force by Parliament and the denial of natural justice. In the scheme of things surrounding the ruling of the Speaker, the Chief Executive of the State – H.E. the President has the reserve through a presidential fiat called presidential pardon to purge Dr. Vibbi from the imprisonment for punishment reasons that was slammed by the House – which is a best practice in presidential system of government. In a commonsense understanding, if Parliament punishes an Executive appointee for contempt of the House, the Chief Executive of the State has the power to pardon the contemnor and the Judiciary will now determine whether both the Legislature and the Executive branches of government acted lawfully in the process. Afterall, there is always unity in diversity in the governance architecture of Sierra Leone. Above all of this, the Chief Executive of the State is also a Member of Parliament as stated in subsection 1 of Section 73 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone which read thus:

There shall be a legislature of Sierra Leone which shall be known as Parliament, and shall consist the President, the Speaker and Members of Parliament

Beyond Sierra Leone, contempt of Parliament is viewed in varying ways by Parliaments the world over. It is procedurally impossible to give guidance as to how any House of Parliament may react to it at any given point in time. In fact, when there is a situation amounting to Contempt of Parliament as stated in Section 96 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Act No. of 1991), the Parliament of Sierra Leone like many other Parliaments in the world has the power to imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive reasons and the privilege to release or take no action.

In the United States, the criminal offence of Contempt of Congress sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not more than $100,000. In a Supreme Court case Anderson v. Dunn, the court upheld the quasi- judicial powers of Congress to punish someone as a deterrent to ensure Congress is not exposed to indignity, interruption, rudeness and conspiracy.

In the United Kingdom, the House of Lords has the penal jurisdiction to fine as well as to order imprisonment for a term of years. The House of Commons on the other hand, has exercised this privilege since 1866 to date. Alexander Murray was called to the Bar of the House of Commons charged with malpractice at a City of Westminster Election. Found guilty by the House, he was ordered into custody at the Newgate Prison until the end of that parliamentary session. When hearing sentence, he refused to kneel at the Bar and was further found guilty of a “high and most contempt of the authority and privilege of the House” The House further ordered that while in Newgate (Murray) “be not allowed the use of pens, ink or paper: and that no person be admitted to have access unto him, without the leave of this House (HC Journal 6 February 1750). The Brexit political comedy of recent times is an exceptional instance where the House of Commons found a Government guilty of contempt and ordered Prime Minister Madam Theresa May to publish the advice of the Attorney General on the Brexit negotiations. Her initial refusal to publish the Attorney General’s advice warranted contempt proceedings against her government. At the end, the advice was published and her Government is still struggling to survive the vestiges of the contempt proceedings and the Brexit political tragi-comedy.

In Australia, Browne- Fitzpatrick privilege case is an instance in which Fitzpatrick and three (3) others were convicted by the Australian Parliament to ninety (90) days each in jail for publishing a libelous article against a Member of Parliament. The Parliamentary Privilege Act of 1987 provided for a punishment of a fine of $5000 and or a six (6) month imprisonment.

In Ghana, there has always been this question of Contempt of Parliament or contempt of the people? In 2015 alone, Parliament of Ghana had several contempt proceedings against some of its citizens. Prominent amongst them were the proceedings against Professor Alex Dodoo and the famous Reggae Musician and Broadcast Journalist Blakk Rasta. Prof. Dodoo was charged for a public statement he made that was deemed contemptuous of the House whilst Blakk Rasta was reported to have said that 80% of Parliamentarians in Ghana smoke marijuana. What is interesting about the Ghanaian situation was that both Prof. Dodoo and the Reggae Musician unreservedly apologized to the House and carried the needful orders of the House. Parliament in turn was magnanimous enough to accept the apology and exercised the power to release or take no action on the contempt charges. Notwithstanding the posture of Parliament on this matter, critics of Parliament questioned the authority of Parliament to have brought those people before the House. The House was of the opinion that their action was lawful and therefore the Speaker asked the critics of Parliament to head to the courts if they so wished. As I write this piece, there is no substantive matter before the courts on the stated contempt proceedings by the Parliament of Ghana.

In conclusion, contempt of Parliament is a criminal offence under the laws of Sierra Leone and the actions of the Fifth Parliament in protecting the dignity of the House is equally a constitutional requirement. Parliaments across the world have reacted differently to the charges of contempt as illustrated in the breadth of this article. Although in the evolving dynamics of democratic governance, Parliaments in modern democracies have shown increasing reluctance to exercise their penal powers, in the case of the Executive Chairman of Produce Monitoring Board, Parliament clearly stretched and exhausted its limits of patience. For all the reasons, Parliament is not only the supreme legislative embodiment of the State, but it is also a political Assembly.

From the spectacles of an outsider, Dr. Vibbi’s contempt proceedings have generated a lot of debate touching on natural justice, protection of fundamental human rights, the principle of separation of powers and the action or inaction of public officials of the State. This matter has further asked Parliament and the general public some salient questions: How do you vet presidential nominees? Is the general public interested in the vetting process of appointees brought before the House to serve in public offices? Notwithstanding the lack of answers to these questions, Parliament can bulletproof itself from future criticism if a Parliamentary Privilege Act is enacted to guide as to how to react to matters relating to privilege, immunity and responsibilities of the House, its Members and officers.

 

$120million investment facilities … FREETOWN TERMINAL EXTENSION PROJECT

By Abu Bakarr Kargbo

Freetown Terminal Limited, which started operations in March 2010, has a concession agreement signed with Government of Sierra Leone in October 2010, for a period of 20 years. As part of its port expansion project, the company is currently implementing a $120million investment in new berth and storage facilities. It enjoyed ratification in Parliament in February 2016, with 10 years additional for port concession (up to 2041), and government of Sierra Leone becoming shareholder with 20%.

The company’s Country Manager, Captain Fabjanko Kokan informed journalists on Friday that the investment is ongoing and on track, noting that they fully respect what they have agreed with the government and are ready to keep to their promise. “The project is for Sierra Leone and Sierra Leoneans today and the future,” Kokan said.

In spite of all challenges, he said they are assured of meeting their target. “We will continue with our investment and commitment. We will complete the work in the coming months and on 1st September this year we will start work,” he assured.

Freetown Terminal recently received some extra modern equipment that will be operated by Sierra Leoneans. They are two Ship to Shore Cranes and four Rubber Tire Gantry Cranes.

Freetown Terminal’s General Manager, Bertrand Kerguelen said each Ship to Shore Crane has a capacity of 1,200 tons weight and both can handle 6, 000 containers. “This is aimed at transforming the port into a standard trans-shipment port,” he said, revealing further that the equipment will be operated by Sierra Leoneans, as the company hopes to train about thirty local staff.

Abu Bakarr Sesay, Freetown Terminal’s Chief of Operation described the four Rubber Tire Gantry Cranes as fast, efficient and reliable. “They serve clients at a faster pace because they can ship and take containers from its position at any time. The four new cranes can perform faster than the nine existing cranes.

The $54million 24 months expansion work started on October 3rd, 2016; to expand the quay to a length of 270 m and depth of 13 m CD. The quantity of sand reclaimed at 800 000 m3, the quantity of concrete at 14 000 m3, paving blocks of 49 000 m2, and has the manpower of 200-250 people on site.

So far, 88 % of progress is achieved, as the quay wall is completed (with quay equipment), the rails for accommodating the 2 STS cranes are installed, and a quayside area of 16 200 m2 is paved.

The Powerplant of 6 MW for feeding the 2 STS cranes and 4 RTG is complete.

Addax told to Review Lease Agreement with Landowners

The Sierra Leone Network on the Right to Food (SiLNoRF) has called on the Management of Sunbird/Addax Bioenergy and the relevant authorities to immediately review the Land Lease Agreement for the lease of farmlands in Bombali and Tonkoli District.

It could be recalled  that in May, 2010 , Addax Bioenergy Sierra Leone Ltd signed land lease agreement with the chiefdom councils of Malal Mara, Makeni Gbaniti and Bombali Sebora’ giving them Exclusive Rights over fifty even thousand (57,000) hectares of farmland for fifty (50) years to grow sugarcane for the production of ethanol for the European Market.

SiLNoRF say the Lease agreement between the company and the Chiefdom councils was due for review since May, 2017 but unfortunately; the company is dragging its feet in that direction.

“Even though the company claimed to have sent a copy of the Lease agreement to the chiefdom council to initiate the review process, we would like to remind the company that it has the obligation to ensure that the Lease Agreement is urgently reviewed,” says Mohamed S. Conteh, SiLNoRF ‘s National Coordinator, and further states that as it stands, Addax/Sunbird Bioenergy is operating illegally and this is a clear manifestation that the company I indeed engaged in a land grabbing and without a renegotiated agreement,.

Even at the time when the agreement was still valid, the company has breached it in two different ways: – Fifty percent (50%) of annual land lease fee to both the central and local government is yet to be paid; The company had even gone further to take over bolilands belonging to the communities the by depriving them of their farming activities contrary to the terms of the Lease agreement.

SiLNoRF has called on the company to ensure that the following critical issues are taken into consideration and are included in the reviewed agreement: The renegotiation process must be al-inclusive with a view that it must translate into a full-fledged “free, prior and informed consent”; the landowners should have the free-will to choose the lawyers that will represent them and this does not in any way exonerate the company from honoring their obligations to any for that representation; the Lease Agreement must not give ‘exclusive rights’ to the company as this provision has rendered the landowners strangers in their own land; the percent lease fee of $3.60 per hectare should be increased to a minimum compensation of fifty (50) United State Dollars; and the reviewed agreement should be in line with all provisions of the National Land Policy and the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (VGGT).

Addax on its part is saying it has contacted the Local Councils to facilitate the reviewing process, but the Councils have replied that financial resources should be poured in so as to enable them carry out such a huge task on behalf of the company.

Santigie Sesay, SiLNoRF’s Head of Communications said the company has failed as a consequence of its poor relationship with the community people, as lots of environmental issues are emerging on land degradation.

 

Govt earns Le65.21billion in three weeks

The implementation of Treasury Single Account (TSA) by the current government has yielded some dividend, says the Financial Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, Sahr Lahai Jusu at a press conference held on Wednesday. The TSA came as a result of the Executive Order No. 1 from State House, which directed all Ministries, Departments and Agencies that collect and retain government revenues should transfer such revenues into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

This, according to the Financial Secretary, was implemented by the Accountant General who succeeded in closing the accounts of Government Agencies held in various commercial banks and transferred the balances into the consolidated revenue fund at the Bank of Sierra Leone. The total amount transferred from 9 to 30 April 2018 (three weeks) is Le65.21 billion. The said amount, according to Mr. Sahr Jusu, is coming from the following Agencies: Petroleum Regulatory Agency, Petroleum Directorate, Road Maintenance Fund Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, National Telecommunications Commission, and Sierra Leone Maritime Administration.

What however is becoming frustrating on the side of these Revenue Collection Agencies is that some of them have been retaining a portion of revenues collected to meet operational costs as per law.  Report reaching this press states that since the government has made it mandatory that all funds collected should be paid into the consolidated fund; they have now been deprived of their entitlements to even buy stationaries.

In response to this, the Financial Secretary said “We are mindful of the need to provide them with resources to meet operational costs, the Ministry of Finance is at present reviewing the Budgets of these agencies to determine their operational monthly cash requirements, rationalize expenditures and transfer excess funds to the consolidated revenue fund, consistent with the Public Management Finance Act 2016 and Fiscal Management and Control Act 2017”.

It could be recalled on 9^th April 2018, President Julius Maada Bio issued an Executive Order No 1 on Domestic Revenue Mobilization covering a broad spectrum of tax and duty waivers. This was aimed at reigning on leakages in revenue mobilization and administration of Government. Similarly, on 25^th April 2018, the President issued Executive Order No 2 on Expenditure Management and Controls covering the cleaning of the wage bill, ban on the purchase and maintenance of government vehicles, payment for mobile phone top-ups, fuel and internet services at homes of public officials, rationalizing of official travels, etc.

The Executive Order suspended various layers of duty and tax waivers to Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), Donor and Government funded projects, Agreements ratified by Parliament as well as MDAs related contracts until the entire duty waiver policy is reviewed.

The Finance Ministry has therefore opened a special Escrow Account at the Bank of Sierra Leone to enable all affected agencies to pay the duty and taxes and they will be refunded when the review is completed. The current deposit at present is said to be Le7billion; and government has said it will establish a special committee that will include Civil Society representatives to review tax and duty waivers on a case-by-case basis.

During the implementation of the Treasury Single Account, report states that agencies like Pharmacy Board, Sierra Leone Insurance Commission, Audit Service Sierra Leone, Sierra Leone Police, and various MDAs do collect and retain revenues.

“Government has therefore reigned in on these revenues to become part of the Treasury Single Account but their inclusion will not undermine access to funds for their operational requirements,” says the Financial Secretary.

SLRSA’s incompetence exposed, as ban on metal seats fail

By Abu Bakarr Kargbo

The incompetence of the Acting Executive Director of Sierra Leone Road Safety Authority (SLRSA) continues to be a serious problem in the day-to-day administration of the government institution, which is tasked with the mandate of managing the road transport sector. Several plans put in place for effective implementation have not been successful; one of such is the ban on metal seats on commercial vehicles that continue to serve as a death trap to passengers.

A meeting held at the SLRSA Headquarters yesterday, marking a presentation on the impact of metal seats in public service vehicles; turned out to be a very sad moment for the organizers as speaker after speaker blamed the SLRSA for its unwillingness to effect the ban. A ban on metal seats should have taken effect in 2017, but it turned out that several meetings and negotiations involving the Drivers Union, SLRSA and other key stakeholders resulted in a postponement to January 2018. “The SLRSA is faced with integrity challenge since Dr. Sarah Bendu was forcefully sent on leave, which is why enforcement of the ban on metal seats was enforced,” a senior RSA staff remarked.

The Global status report on road safety 2013 presents information on road safety from 182 countries, accounting for almost 99% of the world’s population. The report indicates that worldwide the total number of road traffic deaths remains unacceptably high at 1.24 million per year. The report serves as a baseline for the Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020, declared by the UN General Assembly.

Sierra Leone is one of the countries that have not performed well in terms of managing the road transport sector. This is evidently seen in the number of road accidents, which continues to cost lives and leaving some survivors presently injured.

Sierra Leone’s Pathologist, Dr. Simeon Owiss Koroma in his presentation said a study conducted in 2003 showed that there were over three thousand vehicles with metal seats in the country. “This is very alarming in the country especially to passengers whose lives are at risk,” he said, adding that the use of metal seats in commercial vehicles causes deaths and injuries on the road. He recommended that the current government look into it and ensure that a ban is enforced.

SLRSA’s Board Secretary, Sama Gamanga accepted the fact that the Authority’s enforcement capacity is weak, noting that most of the road safety laws in the country are borrowed from the British. He pointed out that over a thousand people die annually as a result of road crashes in Sierra Leone, and part of the deaths are caused by metal seats.

“It is possible to reduce road accidents to its dearest minimum if we do the right thing. to ban metal seat is achievable,” Gamanga said.

SLRSA’s Acting Executive Director, Mrs. Memunatu Koroma said even though it is a bit difficult at the moment the Authority will do it best in enforcement and education for the ban. “We need experts to come on-board to get the right seats under a public-private partnership agreement,” she said.

However, there has been no date fixed for enforcement of the ban. Investigations continue.