By James Tamba Lebbie
An interesting discussion is underway on street corners, bars, restaurants, offices and even in homes. And the arguments - both in
the affirmative and in the negative - largely depend on which side the discussants sit on the political spectrum. I’m referring to the
uncertainties shrouding the much-talked about presidential debate between the two leading political parties – ruling All People's Congress (APC) and the opposition Sierra Leone People's Party (SLPP). Some two weeks ago it was slated for 30th October. But as things stand the chances of it happening are hanging on a thread.
And the objective(s) of the debate? The organisers, made up of nine mostly civil society groups, including the Sierra Leone Association of Journalists (SLAJ), the international media development agency, BBC Media Action and Campaign for Good Governance (CGG) said the debate is meant to create a forum for the major political parties that are likely to win the presidency to explain what their platforms and programmes are for the people of Sierra Leone. They argued that in civilized democracies all over the world, those who aspire to lead people are given a platform to explain not only their programmes but also how they intend to implement them. By so doing, the organisers said, the candidates would subject themselves to public scrutiny.
And it is clear from the relatively small but critical, independent, undecided voters that they are looking forward to the debate because as one fairly old lady remarked to me last week: “We are tired of this type of politics characterized by street rallies. We are looking forward to the articulation of programmes and policies by those who want to govern us so that we can make informed judgments”.
However, a press release signed by the Chairman of the APC National Presidential Campaign Committee and issued on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 appears to have dampened the expectation of the old woman as well as others thinking in a similar direction.
Through the release, the public was informed that “the unwarranted and unlawful obstruction of the presidential motorcade by the SLPP Presidential Candidate, Rtd. Brig. Julius Maada Bio demonstrated total disregard for constituted authority and the rule of law. The orders of the police were brazenly disregarded by Rtd. Brig. Maada Bio. But for the timely intervention of H.E. the President an ugly confrontation with the police would have led to a breach of our hard won peace…In view of the above, the APC National Presidential Campaign Committee has accordingly advised H.E. the president, Dr. Ernest Bai Koroma not to share the same platform in the debate scheduled 30th October, 2012 with a man who has a penchant and disrespect for law and order”. The release goes on to state that “however, invitation for H.E’s participation in similar presidential debates will be considered on a case by case basis”.
And similarly, earlier this week, the APC National Campaign Coordinator, Leonard Balogun Koroma was interviewed on Radio Democracy’s flagship programme, Good Morning Salone where he not only reiterated the same position but also went further to outline additional reasons for their call on the president to boycott the debate. The APC campaign coordinator said one of the organisers of the debate, SLAJ, was biased against the APC. He even went to describe the SLAJ president and vice president, Umaru Fofana and Sheik Bawoh respectively as biased. Further, he said another reason they didn’t capture in their press release was the decision of the organisers not to invite to the debate the leaders of other parties. Interesting reasons indeed!
But no sooner the press release was issued than supporters of the opposition SLPP started speculating reasons for the “advice” given to the president by his campaign officials to withdraw from the debate. The comments and criticisms on lips, in newspapers,
social media and online discussion forums were done in a way that creates the impression it was President Koroma who decided that he would boycott the debate. Although he eventually insinuated last week at the launch of his party’s manifesto in Goderich that he would not share a forum with someone that is not "law-abiding", the comments, mostly uncomplimentary in nature, came before the President’s remark.
But, let’s put the reasons proffered by the APC National Campaign Committee for calling on the president to boycott the presidential debate under scrutiny starting with the latter. Balogun said both SLAJ president and vice president were biased players in the debate. What he didn’t say was that the SLAJ Secretary General (whose resignation was announced last week) was in fact overtly biased in favour of the APC. This is what the Americans call, “cherry picking”. Again, Balogun pointed out that the president should not participate in the debate because other parties have been left out of the exercise. Well, I thought he should have left that point for the Political Parties Registration Commission (PPRC) to handle or better still, for the “marginalized” political parties to cry foul.
And now to the reasons outlined in the press release. When I heard that the Campaign Committee cited Rtd. Brig. Julius Maada Bio’s
“disregard for constituted authority and rule of law” and his “penchant for violence and disrespect for law and order” as reasons for the president not to participate in the debate, I didn’t know how to react – to laugh or to cry. I would not comment on the veracity of the allegation against Julius Maada Bio nor will I rely on police account of the event; the latter is beyond doubt one of the most pliable state institutions in the country, probably second to only the judiciary.
But let’s agree for the sake of argument that Rtd. Julius Maada Bio has “disregard for constituted authority and rule of law” and
“penchant for violence and disrespect for law and order” as alleged by the APC National Campaign Committee, I am still scratching my head to see the connection between that incident and the proposed presidential debate. If there was any connection at all, I would expect the President to use that forum to “demonstrate maturity and statesmanship” as he was said to have done during that incident.
But more importantly, I’m inclined to make the point that the APC National Campaign Committee lacks the moral high to advise the
president on such grounds. This is because the party in power has some of the most lawless public figures I have ever encountered in my adult life. For instance, the President’s Minister of Internal Affairs, Musa Tarawally, was named and shamed in the Shears-Moses Commission of Inquiry as somebody that is lawless and indiscipline.
The inquiry commission was set up to look into political disturbances that had erupted in some parts of the country in the aftermath of the 2007 presidential and parliamentary elections and the 2008 local government elections.
In September last year, supporters of Samuel Sam-Sumana clashed violently with those of the Minister of Internal Affairs when the latter visited Kono. It was widely rumored that the conflict between the two government officials was over the issue of who was going to be President Koroma’s running-mate. As a reaction, the government issued only a lame press statement in which it vowed to investigate the matter and bring those responsible to book. One year on, nothing has come out of that so-called investigation.
Similarly, the president has within his close protection bodyguard a notorious ex-combatant called Idrissa Kamara aka Leader boot, who has allegedly been involved in countless number of violent attacks on innocent civilians, mostly opposition supporters. He was even accused of raping women at the opposition SLPP office in 2009 when supporters of the ruling party allegedly stormed the headquarters of the former.
And just recently, an issue of alleged electoral fraud by one SLPP Member of Parliament, Robin Fallay was discharged from court few days after he had crossed over to the ruling party. If this is not disregard for the rule of law, then I wonder what is.
These are just few cases in point to indicate that the president has over the years been romancing with people who have penchant for violence and disregard for the rule of law. I was therefore expecting this committee to have advised the president long ago not to share company with those law breakers. After all, what is good for the goose must also be good for the gander.
But the most ridiculous aspect of the press release is that part, which reads: “however, invitation for [His Excellency's] participation in similar presidential debates will be considered on a case by case basis”. If the president is advised not to share a forum with the main opposition challenger on the grounds explained in the press release, why should other invitations for the president’s participation in similar debates be considered “on a case by case basis”? Who will the president engage in such a debate? This advice is absurd to say the least!
