Sierra Leone had one of the utmost brutal armed conflicts: the atrocities perpetrated by the Revolutionary Armed Front (RUF), the rebel group operating in the country, killed and mutilated many Sierra Leoneans. The war, lasted more than ten years, ended in 2002. How is the situation in the country at present? Before exploring the current situation in Sierra Leone, it is fundamental to retrace greed and grievances that provoked the outbreak of the civilian armed conflict and caused the death of at least 120 thousand people, thousands of displaced and severe abuses on children.
The action of the RUF, led by former army corporal Foday Sankoh, allegedly in response to the corruption of the incumbent government and the sclerotization of the State (in point of fact, the country had a stagnant economy, a low rate of education among its population and high unemployment), triggered a series of acts of terror and violence, especially against civilians. It should be noted that many RUF rebels joined the Movement for profit, given the abundance of natural resources in the country.
The conflict in Sierra Leone began in 1991. The RUF entered in the country from Liberia; as a matter of fact, the Movement enjoyed the financial support of the Liberian President Charles Taylor, in that he was interested in getting its hands on Sierra Leone’s abundance of natural resources. Shortly after the start of the armed conflict, the RUF began to gain the upper hand over the government armed forces, conquering 2/3 of the country’s territory.
Military coups began to take place and mass conscription was instituted. The government army was small in numbers and the purpose of the mass conscription was precisely to increase the size of the army; however, there are two factors to consider when stating this: firstly, the army increased in quantity and not in fighting capacity; secondly, the so-called “sobelization”, a phenomenon meaning the recruitment of people who were soldiers for the government army during the day and rebels at night. With the gradual victories of the rebels (the RUF was at 30 km of distance from the country’s capital, Freetown), the government sought external support, hiring a private military company (PMC) called Executive Outcomes, of South African origin and using former Soviet vehicles. Executive Outcomes was responsible for helping the government army in the fight against the RUF, in particular, by training soldiers. That action, led to the 1996 Abidjan Accords (1), in the government’s hope for UN intervention, but that did not happen at this time. This, abetted by the withdrawal of the private military company from the theater, caused the Abidjan talks to collapse. Shortly thereafter ECOMOG (the armed wing of ECOWAS) intervened, intending to carry out peacekeeping operations.
A few years later, specifically in 1999, the Lomé Accords (2) were signed. Such Accords, despite granting amnesty to the RUF leader and appointing him, among other things, Vice President of Sierra Leone, led to the initiation of a serious DDR program (Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration) and the deployment of a UN peacekeeping mission, UNAMSIL, which intervened in late 1999 (and remained in Sierra Leone until 2006). Despite the peacekeeping mission, the UN was unable to enforce the mandate of the blue helmets, which caused it to be revised twice in addition to the deployment in theater, with the consent of the Sierra Leonean government, of a British mission (called Palliser Mission), whose objective was precisely to support UNAMSIL, ensure compliance with the Lomé Agreements, and ensure the start of an SSR program (Security Sector Reform). In 2000, the conclusion of the Abuja Accords, led to the ceasefire. Despite residual violence, the President (Kabbah) declared the war over in 2002. The question to ask is whether the agreements have been respected or not and, therefore, comprehend how is the political, social and economic situation in Sierra Leone today.
It is clear that the community was devastated by the widespread brutalities and justice had to be done. Apart from doing international justice for the heinous crimes perpetrated during the long decade of conflict, the intention was to carry out a type of restorative justice, to make peace with the past and with former perpetrators of atrocities given their progressive reintegration into society. For this reason, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was set up, whose aim was precisely to heal the traumas of the Sierra Leonean’s society as well as to reconstruct the social structure by reworking what had happened in order to build a common historical memory and allow the perpetrators of the most serious crimes to ask forgiveness for their misdeeds.
This notwithstanding, the situation in Sierra Leone cannot be said to be stable. While it is true that since 2002, with the end of the armed conflict, according to Freedom House, “Sierra Leone has held regular multiparty elections (…), opposition parties have faced police violence and restrictions on assembly. Civic groups are constrained by onerous regulations and government corruption remains pervasive” (3). Not to mention the fact that President Bio has held power since 2007 (moreover, Bio was responsible for a Coup in 1996, while the armed conflict was still ongoing) and could therefore be described as a “perpetual President”. Moreover, the country is still experiencing significant marginalization and situations of social exclusion, poverty is rampant, especially in the most rural areas of Sierra Leone; these are the same areas where people still have memories haunted by the war, since the restorative justice system of the TRC has not arrived there, and because it has not been possible to rebuild the social structure as it has been done in other areas of the country. Moreover, a serious factor that characterizes political, social and economic life in Sierra Leone today is the widespread corruption that has infiltrated every sector and thus generates social injustices among the population.
It can be said that the country has, on a general level, recovered from the greed and grievances caused by the war, although it still has many problems that prevent the country from being classified as a full democracy. In fact, Freedom House (3) classifies Sierra Leone as a “partly free” regime, corresponding to the hybridity of the regime, precisely because of the aforementioned social differences within the country and the widespread phenomenon of corruption.
The government should initiate a series of political, social and economic reforms aimed at reducing social inequalities, mainly by intervening on the existing gap between rural and central areas; moreover, it would be advisable to intervene and fight the corruption phenomena, as well as to intervene with an independent electoral observation mechanism, making sure that the elections scheduled for this year (in June) meet the criteria of free and fairness. Should this fail to be implemented because of the corruption problems mentioned, the intervention of electoral supervision and assistance mechanisms of a third party (e.g., the EU or the UN) would be necessary to verify the proper execution of the elections.
It is therefore clear that Sierra Leone still needs to take steps forward that will free the country from its turbulent past and, above all, avoid the resurgence of grievances that could generate new and very dangerous tensions for the country.
References:
- https://peaceaccords.nd.edu/wp-content/accords/Abidjan_Peace_Plan_1996.pdf
- http://peaceaccords.nd.edu/wp-content/accords/The_Lome_Peace_Agreement-_1999_0.pdf
- https://freedomhouse.org/country/sierra-leone/freedom-world/2022
By The European Institute for International Law and International Relations.
