Yet, very often, it would appear to me that while we profess to be one people, Sierra Leone as a political entity has always been on trial; she has always been the scapegoat for many of our own failings. It is a wrong attitude and it reminds me of a particular incident, recorded fifty years ago, on the then Sierra Leone Broadcasting Service (SLBS).
Those of us, sixty years and older, will recall the days when John Akar was the first African Director of the then SLBS. In those days, John Akar’s flagship program was the one entitled My Guest.
I remember that the program always started with him singing: yes, indeed, yes, indeed, in that glorious tenor of his that Luciano Pavarotti would have found appealing. John had a gift for getting people to reminisce; even people who do not normally share their experiences in public.
On this particular program, John Akar’s guest was Samuel Bankole Jones, long before he became the Chief Justice of Sierra Leone and was knighted for his services on the bench. I recall that after a good deal of prodding, John finally got the learned judge to share his most interesting moment on the bench.
Sir Samuel took a deep breath. Then, with a mixture of humour and wisdom, he began to reminisce.
It was a case involving receiving stolen property. According to the judge, it was quite clear from the evidence that the accused was not aware he had received stolen goods; but the law was the law: there was this catch phrase about ignorance of the law is no excuse; sadly, the judge had to return a verdict of guilty.
As in most cases in those days, the accused did not speak English, and the services of a translator were therefore required.
One of the most celebrated translators employed by the courts in those days was a venerable old man called Pa Janneh. I recall that he lived either in the same house as the Labbi family, or in the one next to theirs; next to Gibraltar Church on Kissy, now Sani Abacha Street.
Like all good translators, Pa Janneh knew that language was a great tool: a wonderful gift in the hands of the right person. Employed by a gifted translator, an accused could be made to feel good, whether or not he was guilty. Sadly, on this occasion, things went awry.
According to Sir Samuel, the case went like, this, in English and Krio.
Sir Samuel to the translator: Tell the accused that I feel sorry for him.
Pa Jenneh to the accused: de judge say ‘e feel sorry for you’.
The accused: ‘Ohm, P; Ohm’.
Sir Samuel to the translator: ‘Tell the accused that i personally feel he is not guilty of the crime’.
Pa Janneh to the accused: ‘De judge say he believe say you nor guilty’.
The accused: ‘Walai, Pa. Med nor know say da tief ting dis man bring can gee me’.
Sir Samuel to the translator: ‘But tell the accused that, according to the law, I have to find him guilty. Tell him I feel he was used as a scapegoat’.
The translator paused for a while. Obviously he was searching for the right words. After a while, again, according to Sir Samuel’s recollection, he came up with this memorable interpretation.
The Translator to the Accused: ‘But de judge say, according to de law, he get for fen you guilty. E say e sorry for you because you nar lek goat way escape’.
Although it was almost fifty years ago, i shall never forget the reaction of the accused!
According to Sir Samuel, he lost his composure; he felt his dignity had been trampled upon by the complexities of a law he did not understand. How could he, on the one hand, not have committed a crime, according to the judge’s personal view; yet, because of the exegesis of the same law, the judge had to find him guilty?
His outburst was therefore quite understandable.
‘Ah nor understand dis,’ he said. ‘De judge say ah nor guilty; but e say e get for fen me guilty. Den e say me nar lek goat way runway!’
It was a gem of a story about one man’s destiny; how cruel fate could be. But I can still hear the ring of John Akar’s laughter, after Sir Samuel had finished reminiscing.
As you can tell from this memorable recollection about translating the meaning of scapegoat, an innocent man had been convicted of a crime he did not understand. This, I believe, is where we are today: that some of us would rather pass the blame to others instead of accepting the responsibility for our actions. Whether it is the political, legal or social platforms, I hope that, in trying to address our inadequacies, we do not use others as scapegoats.
The last time I was home I was shocked to hear how our common language had been transformed. As had happened to so many other foundation narratives about our history, it had lost some of its original meaning and phrases, but had gained some surprisingly, unexpected beauty.
The old was out, but the new as in:
I remember once using the word adakadakay to a non-Sierra Leonean who was teaching Krio to Peace Corp volunteers in this country.
He was lost for words.
‘Pa Coker,’ he said to me: watin nar adakadakay?’
Now, we have new twists to our common language, such as this masterpiece that I heard in a song:
‘If you commot oversea and meet ose nar you land, nar for balance’.
Over the years, it is quite obvious that, in addition to transforming our common language, some of our young people have transformed other aspects of our communication; they had come of age at a time when they drew their inspiration not so much from familiar cultural and historical norms, but from what was transmitted to them by the powerful forces of international communication and technology; what was transformative, as the society itself was opening up to new forms of economic and other business ventures. These young people had been exposed to a form of modernism and multi-culturism that owed more to Hollywood, the culture of rap, a passion for football and the use of the multimedia, than by anything infused into them by their parents and teachers. If we, the older generation, had not been in a hurry to change, if we had some recognition of the meaning of our relationship to the past, the youths were not so inspired. They were learning something new: tearing up the foundations of society and redefining their present; they had ventured into areas of development that their parents would not have looked at, only twenty five year ago, even if at times, part of that growth was frightening.
But there was one plus in favour of our young entreaupeneurs: they could travel and had been to various parts of the world never imagined by their parents. They had been all over Africa, Asia, the Americas, and to Europe, and had seen how others had faced the challenge of living in a global economy. In other words, they had thrown off the colonial idea that we in Sierra Leone, or anywhere else in Africa, could only develop by copying one model. But more importantly, they believed in the greatest strength known to human progress self-help, discipline, self-development and pride in what a nation can produce; and, most important of all, the dignity of labour: using their hands. Incredibly, even if they were not too well read, they had also mastered the various forms of modern technology, as far as communications was concerned.
During the past twelve months, the world has witnessed the movement for change, championed by young, highly educated people in the Middle East. Without the extraordinary tools of communications, I doubt whether that movement would have gained momentum:
As one analyst put it:
‘At the heart of it all are young people with access to social media, such as facebook, twitter, and e.g. Y frog so that they can express themselves in a variety of situations. Technology has in many ways from the contraceptive pill to the ipod, the blog and the CCTV expanded the space and power of the individual’.
I couldn’t agree more. Given its various applications, technology has been responsible for new research in crop production in much of Africa and other tropical areas; it had helped to slow down or eradicate some of the diseases plaguing us. It has changed the lives of our women and given a change to many of our children to have a decent life.
Mr. President, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, as Sierra Leone becomes increasingly urbanized, we can, with justification, be proud that we are taking a leap forward into the conservation of energy with plans to install solar lamps in our cities and towns; we will soon have the solar optic technology; but technology has also meant that we are in danger of becoming a nation of consumers, as opposed to being one of small scale manufacturers.
ADVERTISEMENT