Gauging The Debate On The National Security Bill

By Alieu S.Tunkara

The debate about a bill on the threshold of getting the presidential assent has lately caught public attention.

The National Security and Central Intelligence Bill is as controversial as the Abortion Bill which ex-President Ernest Koroma declined to sign into law.

If it goes as planned, the 2025 security bill is soon to become law upon the stroke of a pen by the President to replace the preceding legislation passed in 2002 seen as a immediate post-war law.  

If passed into law, it will empower government to raise and train special security personnel to guard such VIPs (Very Important Personalities) as the President, Ministers, Speaker of Parliament among others. 

The bill, understood correctly, aims to set up be a new security agency that will take over security roles normally performed by close protection officers drawn from the army and the police.  

The armed wing of the police known as the OSD (Operational Support Division) perform this role after advanced training locally or internationally. The OSD which emerged during the Commonwealth restructuring of the police force replaced the SSD (Special Security Division) maintained by government since the 1970s, 80s and 90s.  

They are often backed up by army personnel under the agreed Standing Tasks in the MACP (Military Aid to Civil Power), a security policy document approved in 2006. 

Maintenance of peace and security is the first and basic responsibility of government and believes that having a new agency to augment the police and the army is in line with its constitutional mandate.

The Constitution of Sierra Leone, 1991, provides that the peace, security and welfare of the people of Sierra Leone shall be the major responsibility of government, and that all public officers should work towards this aim. 

This provision is augmented by the TRC (Truth and Reconciliation Commission) report, 2004 which recommends that government should devise new principles of national security that reflects the will of Sierra Leoneans to live in peace and harmony.

 In pursuit of this recommendation, government has made effort in creating a robust security architecture as seen in the Office of National Security, National Security Council, Provincial and District Security Committees to keep the state safe from crime and disorder by assessing and detecting early security warning signals. 

The raising of a new security service, public officials argue, is in furtherance of peace and security project, which is a basic government duty. 

They cite several countries having such security agencies providing close protection service to Presidents, ministers and other important personalities. 

The United States which takes pride in a mature and advanced democracy has a state security service to guard their Presidents and ministers. 

The argument holds what is wrong if Sierra Leone has such security agency.    

Despite genuine intendment of the bill as stated by government officials, the move has raised large eyebrows, debates and sometime fear among the public and the political elites. 

The opposition, All People’s Congress (APC) is looking at the bill with fear and suspicion since it is passed during the boycott against the appointment of the new election boss, Edmond Alpha and the alleged snail-pace implementation of the 80 recommendations for electoral reforms.

Owing to fear and suspicion, APC parliamentarians including their leader, Honourable Abdul Kargbo are calling on the President to wait for proper debate on the bill before it is signed. 

It remains unclear whether the President would yield to the opposition’s call or go ahead with his constitutional mandate. 

Some opposition politicians argue that signing the bill means the President has enacted a law for which there is no debate, a move that runs contrary to a long-standing democratic principle.

Argument by other opposition politicians also insinuate a lack of trust and confidence in the state security forces, a move, they say, may not augur well for the state. 

He is of the view that the new bill will even empower the President to bring in anyone into the new security service. 

Looking back at recent history, a former APC politician explained how the importation of foreign troops lowered morale in the country’s traditional forces and created a recipe for the escalation of the war (1991-2002).

 Signing the bill into law, opposition politicians argue, means that the President has listened to SLPP (Sierra Leone People’s Party) and waiting for a debate on the bill means he has listened to the opposition which signals real democracy……. 

Answers to questions about whether the President should wait for a parliamentary debate or sign the bill into law is left to section 108(2) of the Constitution. 

The said section provides for a publication of the text of the bill into the Gazette at least twice and must be subjected to a first, second and third reading. 

To proceed to the second reading, according to the Constitution, two-thirds of the members of parliament must vote in support of the bill. Perhaps, the Parliamentary Standing Orders may say something different, but the Constitution takes precedence since it is the gron norm meaning all laws of Sierra Leone get their efficacy from the Constitution.

Laws become a nullity, void and of no effect when they clash with any of the provisions of the Constitution as stated by section 171(15) of the Constitution. 

The debate on the new bill does not stop within SLPP-APC circles but the public as expressed by the collective views of the people. The people’s fear lies in the composition of the new security service owing to recent experience.

Their argument holds that their liberty is at stake if the ranks of the new force is comprised mainly of men linked to the ruling party. 

They fear that members of the new security service, the debate continues, will take direct orders from politicians to hit at target whether legitimate or not as he who pays piper calls the tune. For the public, it is better to re-train and re-equip the police and army to continue to provide such security service to the political elites. 

The security forces also have a slice of their own argument in the hot topic, fearing that the new bill will cause an erosion of their noble roles of guarding Presidents and ministers.

They also stand to lose some of the benefits and privileges they enjoy from their attachment to the offices of presidents and ministers. 

But, government is allaying their fears saying many of those in the police and army will be brought into the new security service. Such move will reminisce the separation of the Immigration Department from the police service in early, 2000.

A great number of police officers were employed in the new department where they continue their security service uninterrupted.

No difference this time, but the call for the bill to be properly debated still echoes loudly throughout the public.