By Kemo Cham
[First published on www.politicosl.com] Last week the hopes of pro-abortion
campaigners in Sierra Leone were plunged into uncertainty after President
Ernest Bai Koroma gave in to pressure from religious leaders who appear to be
positioning themselves to use the Bible and Quran to influence the running of
what is constitutionally a secular state.
The ‘Safe Abortion Act 2015’, passed
last month, was prevented from becoming a law when the President failed to sign
it in a move apparently calculated to appease a strategic segment of the
population. The Inter Religious Council (IRC), which has convinced itself that
the legislation runs contrary to morality, even if it, as its proponents claim,
seeks to save lives, asked the President not to sign it.
The Act, passed on December 8, 2015,
had been in the making for about five years, with the US-based pro-abortion
lobby Ipas at the head of a small coalition championing it. The organization,
armed with statistics that point to a worrisome reality faced by women and
girls, says the law is a response to untold suffering and deaths due to unsafe
abortion occasioned by the current pre-colonial law that criminalizes any form
of abortion.
We are yet to hear anyone disputing
these statistics, except for the UK-based ‘Protection of Unborn Children’ which
merely questioned the impartiality of conducting a research for one’s own
propaganda purposes.
But Ipas did not have to conduct any
research to demonstrate that something had to be done about unsafe abortion in
Sierra Leone. According to the World Health Organisation, around one in 70
women in the country dies during or shortly after childbirth. And about
one-third of these deaths is linked to unsafe abortion.
Besides the compelling argument
demonstrated by these statistics, by accepting their request Koroma did not
only succumbed to an attempt by the religious leaders to encourage the
Executive to flout a cardinal democratic principle – Separation of Power – but
he was also gambling with the lives of women and girls.
By the way, it was reassuring to
hear the President reminding his guests about the existence of this ‘separation
of power’ principle, even though he went ahead to do exactly as they wanted.
Let’s hope that this is truly a sign
of a new beginning in a new year –separation of power.
Flaw of diplomacy
This debate has further
exposed a few more things. Importantly it has exposed the flaw in the
‘diplomacy’ approach of the Ipas country office.
Apparently, the advocacy
organization convinced themselves that by playing diplomacy, they would
eliminate any semblance of confrontational approach which could have led to the
quick defeat of the bill even before it saw parliament. And they were absolutely
right, only that they failed to see, or overlooked the fact that ours is a
seriously conservative society. But conservatism doesn’t necessarily suggest
one is entirely opposed to progressive ideas. They just need convincing.
In short, Ipas did not do any
consultation on this all important piece of legislation.
This way they overlooked,
admittedly, a crucial segment of the society – religious leaders.
Rev Osman Forna, IRC Secretary
General, told the President at the State House meeting that there was no way
they could give their position to the issue without looking into the bill,
suggesting a religious summit.
If that statement by the Reverend
exposed the unforgivably uninformed nature of the religious establishment, it
also showed how much Ipas failed in its assignment.
We could have saved time and energy
if we had debated what’s perhaps the thorniest part of the bill – the fact that
anyone under 18 is free to abort pregnancy before 12 weeks?
And there is still the issue of
women transported out of town to show support while MPs debated the bill. It
turned out, according to local media reports, the poor women were themselves
opposed to abortion. They were never informed why they were been ferried or the
meaning of the inscriptions on the t-shirt they were asked to wear. This is
dishonesty at its climax.
It’s as if Ipas didn’t want the
content of the document to be known before hand; as if someone was only
interested in having the law passed in parliament?
That said, if our esteemed religious
leaders claimed they did not know anything about the bill, yet they are so
passionately concerned about it, then they have failed seriously in their role
as guiding angels of a society already basking in moral decadence.
And as we prepare for the next phase
of the battle over this issue, the religious folks can do the Sierra Leone
public tremendous favour if they speak coherently.
It’s confusing hearing the President
of the IRC saying they do not want any abortion law, while its Secretary
General, Rev Furna, is calling for a summit before coming with a definitive
position.
This issue, for God’s sake, concerns
lives. So our religious leaders must tell the people of Sierra Leone quickly
what they want now about the issue. As it is they clearly have no idea what
they are even opposing.
Democracy is not just for the
majority. Even if most Sierra Leoneans are against the law, there is
that small number that deserves a say.
Music to the hear
The President’s office is no immune
from criticism for its handling of the situation. In the president’s own words,
the IRC first met him about the issue when it was being debated, shortly before
it was passed.
According to other sources, Koroma
even promised the religious leaders that when the bill reached his desk he
wouldn’t sign it.
What’s baffling now is, why did he
have to wait until it reached him only to resend it if he knew he wasn’t going
to sign it?
Why didn’t he advise the religious
leaders at the time to engage parliament when the bill was still there, instead
of them having to wait for it to get to his table and waste precious time
talking about something he knew the outcome of already.
And the President, again by his own
words, knew that day, Januray 6th, was the last day he had to either
sign or return the bill. And he so curiously chose that day for the meeting.
But maybe Koroma knew just well what
he was doing. He gave in to the demand of the religious leaders in view of the
fact that they command a “huge” constituent.
“The circumstances have changed.
Parliament has passed the bill and the bill is before me for signing,” the
President gleefully said in front of the camera.
“As it is, this is where separation
of power comes. I cannot make the law.”
If it was a plan, it no doubt
worked.
At the end of the State House meeting,
in both the Christian and Islamic prayers said in closing, both the Imam and
Reverend referred to the ‘God sent’ and ‘listening leader’.
This is music to many an African
politician.
(C) Politico 13/01/16
No comments:
Post a Comment