By Andrew Keili
FREETOWN, Aug 10 (232News) – Here beginneth the first chapter of the first bill of KKY, commonly called The Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amended) Act 2020 or the Inclusivity Gospel beginning at the first verse.
1. Hear O Sierra Leoneans, this country of Sierra Leone is one united and peaceful country that should be inclusive in its governance, giving the opportunity of diverse groups of people to participate in her governance.
2. In light of this, this Act will seek to remove from the constitution the disqualification of dual citizens from contesting election as Members of Parliament, prohibit the election and/or appointment of dual citizens as President, Vice President and Speaker, improve the representation of women in parliament, reduce the time required by public officers to resign before elections and remove the provision causing the Speaker to remove a member who has ceased to be a member of the political party of which he was elected to parliament from parliament.
3. This will ensure a fairer gender representation in Parliament, allow public officers to stay in office until six months before the elections and allow members parliament who leave the party they were elected for to continue to serve as members of parliament.
Here endeth the first lesson.
Here beginneth the second book of KKY commonly called Consultative conference for Implementing Diaspora Voting for Sierra Leoneans.
1. I KKY call for a consultative conference on implementing Diaspora Voting for Sierra Leoneans. A representative democracy is ensured by the conduct of free, fair and credible elections, one in which all eligible citizens are counted to vote, and whose votes are counted. This fundamental human right is not automatically relinquished by citizens when they emigrate. Diasporas should therefore be enabled to register and vote at a location in or near their countries of residence.
Here endeth the second lesson.
Each of these gospels speaks for itself. Ironically, though preached in different ways by various political parties in their manifestoes, it has been difficult to get parties to rally round and legislate inclusivity in a serious way and also to take diaspora voting seriously.
I doubt if there is any party that does not support greater female representation in our governance system. Similarly, it would appear parties are also in favour of dual citizens being elected for certain positions, albeit with some caveats. The matter of female participation and empowerment is also the subject of a bill to be introduced by government. The two major parties, SLPP and APC have at various times used the provisions barring dual citizens from being elected to Parliament to their advantage when it suits them and turning a blind eye to them when they think they can get away with it. In fact, there have been several cases of dual citizens being elected to Parliament. Things however got heated up during the 2018 elections when it was thought this was being unearthed and publicised to disqualify one particular Presidential candidate. This became an own goal as it also prevented the re-election of several sitting MPs, who it was rumoured were dual citizens.
The matter of requiring public officials to resign at least twelve months before elections has been used in several election petition cases and the very definition of “public official” has undergone several types of interpretation. Suffice it to say, however that for all of these issues, there are compelling reasons for doing away with these provisions which seem to serve no useful purpose and prevent important groups of citizens from serving in elected office.
The current ACC Commissioner Francis Ben Keifala, then of the Renaissance Movement weighed in on this a few years ago: “My personal view is that a 12- month resignation requirement is unprogressive, too wide and unnecessary for public officers wishing to vie for the Presidency (and Parliament) and should be totally expunged from the constitution.” This law may actually prevent a good field of candidates from joining the political fray as they cannot afford to go without a salary for a whole year. Yumkella opines that this will particularly prevent a considerable number of young people from seeking elective office.
The Diaspora Voting (DV) issue is another that seems to have the support of various parties. Dr Yumkella has not only provided a compelling rationale for going this route but also handled the matter of the modus operandi well. He calls for a consultative conference on this important issue. Sierra Leoneans in the diaspora contribute significantly to the economic development of their country of origin. According to Dr. Yumkella, Diaspora voting increases a sense of belonging and enhances the participation of diaspora in the political and socioeconomic development of their home countries. He cites several recent studies by the World Bank, the Brookings Institution, and other global think thanks which found that, between 2010 and 2018, African countries such as Senegal and Mali that allowed their citizens in the diaspora to vote in their host countries of residence experienced a much higher increase per annum in the percentage of remittances repatriated by those diasporas to their home countries than African countries that did not allow or make provision for diaspora voting. He also cites a UNDP study that shows that for a developing country like Sierra Leone that derives up to 25% of its GDP from remittances sent by its diaspora, the country may be missing out on even higher percentages of remittances of between $100 million USD and $200 million USD and increased GDP by not instituting diaspora voting. He claims that DV strengthens connective bonds and greater buying by diaspora for a government’s development agenda.
In actual fact there are no legal impediments to DV for eligible Sierra Leoneans abroad and eligible Sierra Leoneans abroad have the right to exercise their democratic franchise by participating in elections through DV. In fact, Section 18 of the Public Elections Act, 2012 is explicit in providing a basis in law for DV. Since its establishment by law in 2002, the National Electoral Commission (NEC) has never implemented diaspora voting. It attributes this inability to administrative impediments rather than legal prohibitions.
Dr. Yumkella makes the case that as has been the case in comparable countries like Senegal and Mali, DV is implementable and affordable. He goes on to indicate how it is implemented in various countries, namely Cape Verde, Senegal and South Africa. There are several administrative and logistics issues to address in the case of Sierra Leone including countries for voting, qualifications criteria, registration and supervision of elections etc., but he claims that whatever impediments may exist can easily be circumvented with the right resolve. He goes on the prove that the budget is affordable and the funds can be sought from various sources including the diaspora voters themselves.
Yumkella concludes: “Effective execution of DV will require collaboration between different state and non-state entities; careful consultation and planning; and adequate and timely budgetary provision”.
So what is stopping diaspora voting? Anyone familiar with Sierra Leone politics knows that a significant portion of funds for running parties come from diaspora branches. They not only in the main fund flagbearer aspirants and national Executives but individual and group members and often fund constituency elections. Diasporas also exhibit immense enthusiasm for elections. Some spend a considerable amount of money just to come home to be registered in order to be eligible for voting and then come back again to vote. Ironically, some of those most opposed to diaspora voting are diasporas who have made good in local politics and have had the opportunity of getting plum politically instigated jobs.
Several questions arise on the issues of inclusivity and diaspora voting touted by Dr Yumkella and which were broached in Justice Cowan’s constitutional Review report. If these are good ideas, what have politicians not run with them? The answers may be numerous. One school of thought says it is the “messenger” that is unacceptable to some. That Dr Yumkella is strongly resented by some within the governing party is not news. A political analyst told me-“As long as these ideas are moved in the main by KKY, the SLPP will not make them have legs. KKY will continue to be silenced in Parliament and not given a national platform with these innovative issues”. Another school of thought is that governing parties are usually weary about diaspora opposition and may not be inclined to take “unnecessary risks” Also the thinking continues that whilst inclusivity may be a good thing and look good in the eyes of the public, adopting them wholesale could shatter entrenched ideas to the detriment of old guard within the parties.
Whatever the case, it seems that having being prevented from putting these ideas through the proper channels (parliamentary discussions and bills) over the past three years or so, he has decided to go to the public, hoping that debate will be engendered. So far, this seems to be the case. KKY however claims that there are several MPs in the various parties that support these ideas but may want to see the right signals from the leadership of their parties. He claims even President Bio seemed to warm up to these ideas, when they had discussions. But will KKY be the voice crying in the wilderness? Will his inclusivity gospel have open converts amongst our law who will help propagate it or are they amongst the ranks of the heathen? Only time will tell. Ponder my thoughts.
