President Ernest Bai Koroma’s two year administration is being derided mainly by critics, but also increasingly by ordinary people as a failure. While the president may be personally responsible for the overall performance of his administration yet my question is – did we actually provide the President with a system to succeed?
I say so because I strongly believe that the way the constitution is structured hampers the performance of any new government administration and set it almost immediately on a path of instant confusion which soon leads to failure.
In 2002 I questioned the swift taking of the oath of office of President Tejan Kabbah which happened barely a day after Electoral Commissioner Walter Nicol declared him the winner with about 70% of the votes cast.
Back then it was the continuation of the same administration and thus it looked smooth and without hitch. However for me then was the question, why the rush to be sworn in after a big winning and a result which was widely accepted even by the opposition? Why don’t we have a few days and plan a befitting inauguration with pomp and pageantry? But then the 1991 constitution was a fairly new one having been suspended for four years during the NPRC rule and this provision had never been used or tested.
Learning as we journalists normally do along the way, President Kabbah himself answered the question in his post swearing-in press conference that the constitution says the winner of the election must be sworn in soon after the election results are declared. Indeed Sec 42 sub section (3) of the 1991 Constitution provides that “A person elected to the office of President under this section shall assume that office on the day upon which he is declared elected by the Returning Officer, or upon the date that his predecessor’s term of office expires, whichever is the latter.
I started questioning the rationale behind such a constitutional provision, and the obvious reason put forward is that it will stop any legal contesting of the election results and thus prevent a situation where the country goes without a constitutionally elected President for a long time because of a long running court case about the legitimacy of the election results.
President Kabbah was, and is still a lawyer, but I did not credit him with that brilliant interpretation of the constitution. Instead I turned my gaze to one of this country’s most brilliant legal mind (and I say this with full respect) his then Vice President Solomon Berewa. Again back then it was good and it was correct, but I wonder what Vice President Berewa would think of such a provision now in retirement when the same provision played brilliantly in his favour in 2002 but cruelly against him in 2007.
Back to the issue, in 2007 we now saw perhaps the wisdom of the constitution drafters, when in the middle of launching a court action against the ‘controversial’ election results, Ernest Bai Koroma was declared a winner and promptly sworn in as President.
The speed with which he was sworn in without the befitting pomp and pageantry saw him organizing (unconstitutionally???) a befitting inauguration ceremony later. Cruelly although some critics would say deservedly, President Kabbah was denied his last stance on the stage when by some mix up he was not allowed to make a speech to say a befitting good-bye.
But what was won by thwarting a long running legal tussle was in my opinion lost in the setting up of a new administration which suddenly found itself wielding power, and since that day has been learning to do so, even two years after, to the detriment of the country.
I say so because I was fortunate (courtesy of the United States Embassy here) to witness and learn first hand about the American electoral system. Out there the constitution gives the newly elected President a period after election to (very importantly) sit back and plan for taking over government. This is the period when the new president gets over (in my opinion) the joy of winning and comes to terms with his position as President. This is not only done in America but here in West Africa, the Liberians next door do it, the Ghanaians do it and even the Nigerians who are known to conduct the most debatable elections.
This is why I argue here that section 42 sub section 3 must be changed because unlike Kabbah’s swearing in which was seamless, Ernest Koroma’s swearing in did not give him time to psychologically prepare for governance. In my opinion he was still riding high on the hazy waves of his victory to wake up the next morning and practically begin to run the state. I feel he was not psychologically prepared and it was cruel on the part of the constitution drafters to thrust a ‘rookie’ President into that situation.
For a relatively young man (not in age but in politics) inexperienced in political governance to have power suddenly and ‘shockingly’ thrust on him and to expect him to perform like a veteran and not do anything wrong would be unbelievable.
For me I would say in such a situation the man has to be extremely brilliant and strong not to fail.
I say so because in Africa not even the Gods can guarantee you a winning in an election and President Koroma must definitely have (literally) had his heart in his mouth until he was declared the winner. And even then he would have said to himself wait a minute it is not true yet let me be sworn in first. For any man I imagine it would be turmoil in his mind for those first hours and those first days as I said earlier he would be psychologically challenged.
As a result he would not be able to compose himself enough about what he needs to do.
This is because when politicians speak as opposition leaders, it is quite a different story when they speak while in the chair as President. As I see it this is why we saw Ernest Koroma almost immediately going back on his election promise not to take people from parliament to become members of his cabinet. This may also well be why we saw him releasing his cabinet in piecemeal. Moreso this may well be why he asked SLPP minister to stay in office and help run the ministries until such time when their replacements would have been passed by parliament. As I see it he was simply not able to grapple with the administration of the country yet due to his being unprepared and not being given time to settle down.
Indeed for me the constitutional provision is very cruel to new Presidents and it force upon them heavy duties when they are not prepared. Given that those who refuse to prepare are prepared to fail the constitution definitely in my opinion prepares any new President to fail.
As I see it we must copy what happens in the US. Out there, the election takes place on the first Tuesday in November. So whether it takes several weeks to count there is still time before the inauguration day which is almost two months after the elections on 20th January.
In Sierra Leone we could stretch that period to three months given that we have provisions for a run-off elections. But we must try to firstly get a firm and unmovable date for our elections and a firm and unmovable date for the inauguration of our President.
This will certainly help us to plan well for our elections and also for our incoming president to find the time to climb down his high election victory horse and come down to earth and seriously look at what he should do as President. Again Obama moved into the white house with a Chief of Staff he did not go there and start finding who to appoint. This is why he was being assessed on what he had achieved in 100 days, but our own President being that he was unprepared psychologically has asked us to judge him in three years do we have to ask again why?
As I see it the parliamentarians must now start serious work on amending our constitution to reflect our current experiences otherwise we should not grumble when our new president do not perform the way we want them to.
By Kelvin Lewis
ADVERTISEMENT