Sierra Leone Association of Journalists v Attorney General and Minister of Justice And Another (SC 1 of 2008) [2009] SLSC 7 (10 November 2009)

ZIt : INTHE SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEONE 4 $.c.2008 IN THE CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE ACT NO.6 OF 1991 SECTION 25, 28, 171013) a IN THE MATTER: SECTIONS 26, 27, 32-37 OF PUBLIC ORDER ACT NO.A6 196 IN THE MATTER OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THE SUPREME COURT RULES °89-98 STATUTORY INSTRUMENT NO.1 1982. BETWEEN: ‘THE SIERRA LEONE ASSOCIATION OF JOURNALISTS = PLAINTIFF AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE = 8° DEFENDANT ‘THE MINISTER OF INFORMATION BROADCASTING AND COMMUNICATIONS - 28 DEFENDANT

Coram

HON. MS. JUSTICE U.H. TEJAN-JALLOH - CHIEF JUSTICE HON. MRS. JUSTICE S, BASH-TAQK ET SC HON. MRS. JUSTICE V.A.D. WRIGHT = DISC HON. MR. JUSTICE M.E.T. THOMPSON Peg JSC) HON. MR. JUSTICE G. SEMEGA-JANNEH esc YADA WILLIAMS ESQ. AND OSMAN JALLOH ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTCE |. M. FARMAH ESQ, AND OSMAN KAMARA ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANTS

2i3

[UDGMENT DELIVERED THE 10" payor Nowen7B éR2000,

+ TOLLA THOMPSON, L.S.C. Having had the advantage of reading the Judgment just delivered by my Lady the Chitf Justice I found myself fully in agreement with her analysis of the issues she had to deal with and the conclusion arrived at. I shall articulate my own opinion on this matter in this way. On the 26" February 2008 the Plaintiff, The Sierra Leone Association of Jo:rnalists a Company Limited by guarantee and incorporated under the Company's Act chapter 249, of the laws of Sierra Leone 1960. By notice of an originating motion moved this Court for the following reliefs pursuant to section 25 and 171(15) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone 1991 Act No.6 of 1991 (which for the purpose of this ruling, I shall refer to ‘as the Constitution) namely:

A. The interpretation of section 25 of the Constitution viz-a-viz section 26, 27, 32-36 of the Public Order Act 1965 No.46 of 1965 (which for the purpose of this judgment 1 shall henceforth refer to as the Act) for the following questions.

(1) Whether the provisions of section 26, 27, 32-36 of the Act criminelizing free speech contravene the right to Freedom of expression guaranteed under the entrenched provision of section 25(1) of the Constitution No.

(2) Whether the provisions of sections 26, 27, 32-36 of the Act can be demons:rabiy justifiable, in the light of Sierra Leone's obligation, under the Universal Declaration

" of Human Rights, the international Convention on Civil and Political Risitts ard the African Charter of Human and Peoples Right

aie : (IID If the answer to (I) and (II) above are in the affirmative whether the provision of > section 26, 27, 32-36 of the Act also fall out of the restrictive provision of section 25(2) of the Constitution “s B. Declaration sections 26, 27, 32-36 of the Act criminalizing free speech are inconsistent with the section 25(1) of te Constitution.

C. A declaration that the restrictive provision to the right to freedom of expression under

section 25(2) of the Constitution does not serve the provision of sections 26, 27, 32-36 of. the Act in so far as the said provision cannot demonstratively justifiable in a democratic society

D. Any further order or relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit and just

Background

This originating Notice of Motion relates to freedom of expression as enshrined in Section 25(1) of the Constitution. The complaint is that freedom of expression has been criminalized by some sections of the Act.

It is generally accepted that in a democratic society, freedom of expression is a fundamental right enjoyed by members of that society; therefore members of the Plaintiffs Association who exercise such freedom of expression by the dissemination of information are at liberty to publish any matter of public interest, without fear or favour and with objectivity. If perchance, the publication is malicious, manifestly false or impinges on the right, and reputation of others, such publication will be said, had gone beyond the pale of fair comments and or privilege, and such conduct amounts to a license, Sellers Li. (deceased) in Broadway Approval Ltd. and Another v. Odham Press

jy, 1962 ABR 523 at 535 inter alia put it this way Ant honest expression of opinion on a matter of publi irterest és not actionable even though it may be untrue and devoid of justification. It may be said in the

J 2\S 5 appropriate circumstances; that a man’s conduct is discreditable and it may be * said a fair comment to make although a jury is not prepared to find that the substance of comment was true.” ‘Also in Tolley SS. Fry and Sons Ltd. 1KB 1930 467 at 479 which was quoted with + approval in Harding vs. Sierra Leone Daily Mail 1964-66 ALR SL

563. Greer LJ. (deceased) in determining which words are actionable as defamatory had this to say: * “Words are not defamatory unless they amount to an attack on a man’s reputation or character. They must tend to disparage him in the eyes of the average sensible citizen. Words are not actionable as defamatory. However they may damage a man in the eyes of a section of the community, unless they also amount to disparagement of his reputation to the eyes of the right thinking man generally.” Here in Sierra Leone it is the bias and sometimes malicious reporting of events that some members of the Plaintiff's Association have been the offenders. They wantonly and recklessly publish things attacking the reputation of other members in the society. ‘This they gleefully refer to in their journalistic parlance as “attack and collect, defend and collect or coasting”. Whatever these expressions mean I do not know.

In spite of all these, journalists still continue to enjoy their fundamental right to freedom of expression that is why there are about forty news papers in circulation and numerous radio stations. Now by invoking the relevant provision of the Constitution, they are asking this court to give them an unlimited freedom of expression, by declaring that the Act is inconsistent with the Constitution and also criminalizes freedom of expression.

Preliminary Issues

Before dealing with the substantive issue, I have identified two issues arising 7 from the Plaintiff's originating Notice of Motion, which { shall deal with os preliminary points. They are CAPACITY/STANDING of the Plaintiff and the DECLARATION sought by him.

The pages read for this report end here. The judgment continues in the PDF.