by wallyg

By Syl Juxon Smith

Constitutional, political masturbation and confusion in legal interpretations threatens our very morality, dignity and sovereignty. Outline below, are three factors inter woven within our constitution that’s threatens its very legality and authority by our actions and behaviour with regards to its interpretations, willingly consented to by its framers the very past and present politicians of Sierra Leone unabated.

What has gone wrong? Is it the process, the system, the government, politicians or the people? Did we sex up our constitution or the politics of our democracy?

1. The International UN Court- was setup by the United Nation on request by the Sierra Leonean government of the then SLPP under the rule of Dr Ahmed Tejan Kabbah a lawyer himself and a past administrator of over 25 years of standing with the UN system. It is to have both international criminal laws flavoured based on standard international war crimes proceedings with local treasonable and criminal interpretations. [The first model of experimentation].

2. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission- is based on the South African model for the process of reconciliation in documentations of the facts and truths by the perpetrators and victims. (With immunity from prosecution from confessions and utterances that may incriminate anyone testifying before it).

3. Our Local Courts- Were, and are to carry on with business as usual to try those of crime against the people and state as it is enshrined in the constitution of Sierra Leone.

It is plain, in the first place, that the language of our constitution, as an agreement, purports to be only what it is at most really was, viz., a contract between the people existing and of necessity, binding as a contract. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that we had any right or power, to trade it, interfere, abuse, doctored or prostitute it. How would “posterity” will, shall, we be judged. It only says, in effect, that our hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to lives and posterity by promoting our unity, safety, tranquillity, liberty, human right, dignity, and sovereignty. It would only indicate that the supposed welfare of our lives and posterity was one of the motives that induced the original parties to enter into this agreement.

When a man says he is building a house for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of binding them, nor is it to be inferred that he is so foolish as to imagine that he has any right or power to bind them, to live in it. So far as they are concerned, he only means to be understood as saying that his hopes and motives, in building it, are that they, or at least some of them, may find it for their happiness to live in it. So when a man says he is planting a tree for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of compelling them, nor is it to be inferred that he is such a gullible person as to imagine that he has any right or power to compel them, to eat the fruit. So far as they are concerned, he only means to say that his hopes and motives, in planting the tree, are that its fruit may be agreeable to them.

So it was with those who originally framed the Constitution. Whatever may have been their personal intentions, the legal meaning of their language, so far as their “posterity” was concerned, simply was, that their hopes and motives, in entering into the agreement, were that it might prove useful and acceptable to their posterity; that it might promote their union, safety, tranquillity, and welfare; and that it might tend to secure to them the blessings of freedom. The language does not assert nor at all imply any right, power, or disposition, on the part of the original parties to the agreement, to compel their “posterity” to live under it. If they had intended to bind their posterity to live under it, they should have said that their objective was, not to secure to them the blessings of freedom, but to make mockery of them; for if their “posterity” is bound to live under it, they are nothing less than the slaves of their foolish, tyrannical, and dead grandfathers.

Of the amount that are permitted to vote, probably not more than two-thirds (about one-ninth of the whole population) have usually voted. Many never vote at all. Many vote only once in ten years, in periods of great excitement. No one, by voting, can be said to pledge himself for any longer period than that for which he votes. If, for example, I vote for a member of parliament who is to hold his office for only a 5 year period, I cannot be said to have thereby pledged myself to support the government beyond that term. Therefore, on the ground of actual voting, it probably cannot be said that more than one-ninth or one-eighth, of the whole population are usually under any pledge to support such a Constitution.

It cannot be said that, by voting, a man pledges himself to support the Constitution, unless the act of voting be a perfectly fair and voluntary one on his part. Yet the act of voting cannot properly be called a fair and voluntary one on the part of any very large number of those who do vote. It is rather a measure of necessity imposed upon them by others, than one of their own choice. In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being which we now call WATERMELON POLITICS.

On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man/woman finds him/herself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay taxes, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under weighty economical cicumstances. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master of his destiny; if he does not use it, he must become a victim of the status quo. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self- defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot — which is a mere substitute for a bullet — because, as his only chance of self- preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.

Doubtless the most miserable of men or women, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby meliorating their condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself that crushes them was one which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented to.

Therefore, a man’s voting under the Constitution of Sierra Leone, is not to be taken as evidence that he ever freely assented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Consequently we have no proof that any very large portion, even of the actual voters of Sierra Leone, ever really understands and voluntarily consented to the Constitution, even for the Time being. Nor can we ever have such proof, until every man is left perfectly free to consent, or not, without thereby subjecting him/herself or his/her property to be disturbed or injured by others. As we can have no legal knowledge as to who votes from choice, and who from the necessity thus forced upon him, we can have no legal knowledge, as to any particular individual that he voted from choice; or, consequently, that by voting and he consented, or pledged him/herself, to support the government. Legally speaking, therefore, the act of voting utterly fails to pledge any one to support the government. It utterly fails to prove that the government rests upon the voluntary support of anybody. On general principles of law and reason, it cannot be said that the government has any voluntary supporters at all, until it can be distinctly shown who its voluntary supporters are.

All the usurpations and tyrannies of governments present and past, taking a man’s property without his consent, threatening his life then to infer his consent because he attempts to speak out or supports an opposition, by voting for a change to prevent that property from being used to his injury, is a very insufficient proof of his consent to support the Constitution. It is, in fact, no proof at all. And as we can have no legal knowledge as to who the particular individuals are, if there are any, who are willing to be bribed for the sake of voting, we can have no legal knowledge that any particular individual consents to be bribed for the sake of voting; or, consequently, consents to support the Constitution.

At nearly all elections, votes are given for various candidates for the same office. Those who vote for the unsuccessful candidates cannot properly be said to have voted to sustain the Constitution. They may, with more reason, be supposed to have voted, not to support the Constitution, but specially to prevent the tyranny which they anticipate the successful candidate intends to practice upon them under colour of the Constitution and party politics; and therefore may reasonably be supposed to have voted against the Constitution itself. This supposition is the more reasonable, in as much as such voting is the only mode allowed to them of expressing their dissent to the Constitution. Many votes are usually given for candidates who have no prospect of success. Those who give such votes may reasonably be supposed to have voted as they did, with a special intention, not to support, but to obstruct the execution of, the Constitution; and, therefore, against the Constitution itself.

As all the different votes are given secretly (by secret ballot), there is no legal means of knowing, from the votes themselves, who votes for, and who votes against, the Constitution. Therefore, voting affords no legal evidence that any particular individual supports the Constitution. And where there can be no legal evidence that any particular individual supports the Constitution, it cannot legally be said that anybody supports it. It is clearly impossible to have any legal proof of the intentions of large numbers of men, where there can be no legal proof of the intentions of any particular one of them.

There being no legal proof of any man’s intentions, in voting, we can only conjecture them. As a conjecture, it is probable, that a very large proportion of those who vote, do so on this principle, viz., that if, by voting, they could but get the government into their own hands (or that of their friends), and use its powers against their opponents, they would then willingly support the Constitution; but if their opponents are to have the power, and use it against them, then they would NOT willingly support the Constitution. In short, men’s voluntary support of the Constitution is doubtless, in most cases, wholly contingent upon the question whether, by means of the Constitution, they can make themselves masters, or are to be made victims. Such contingent consent as that is, in law and reason, no consent at all. As all voting is secret (by secret ballot), and as all secret governments are necessarily only secret bands of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, the general fact that our government is practically carried on by means of such voting, only proves that there is among us a secret band of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, whose purpose is to rob, victimise, persecute, violates human right, and, so far as necessary to accomplish their purposes, suffer the rest of the people. For all the reasons that have now been given, voting furnishes no legal evidence as to who the particular individuals are (if there are any), who voluntarily support the Constitution. It therefore furnishes no legal evidence that anybody supports it voluntarily.

So far, therefore, as voting is concerned, the Constitution, legally speaking, has no supporters at all. And, as a matter of fact, there is not the slightest probability that the Constitution has a single bona fide supporter in the country. That is to say, there is not the slightest probability that there is a single man in the country, who both understands what the Constitution really is, and sincerely supports it for what it really is.

The ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes, viz.:

1. ELITES, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth.

2. DECIEVERS — a large class, no doubt — each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, victimising, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, victimising, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a “free man,” a “sovereign”; that this is “a free government”; “a government of equal rights,” “the best government on earth,” and such like absurdities. Suppose it is “the best government on earth,” does that prove its own goodness, or only the badness of all other governments?

3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously the same, The mercenary takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a mercenary. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated citizens, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults as these.

All political power, so called, rests practically upon this matter of money. Any number of scoundrels, having money enough to start with, can establish themselves as a political party then a “government”; because, with money, they can hire mercenaries, thugs, militias, and with this extort more money; and also compel general obedience to their will. It is with government, as Caesar said it was in war, that money and soldiers mutually supported each other; that with money he could hire soldiers, and with soldiers extorts money. So these so called politicians, who call themselves governments, well understand that their power rests primarily upon money. With money they can hire thugs, militias, mercenaries, and with this composition extort power and money. And, when their authority is denied, the first use they always make of money is to apply the same formula to kill or subdue all who challenges or threatening their political survival.

For this reason, whoever desires freedom, justice and liberty, should understand these vital facts, viz.:

1. That every man who puts his resources or money into the hands of a bad or rotten “government” (so called), puts into its hands a sword which will be used against him, to extort from him, and also to keep him in subjection to its arbitrary will to his/her demise.

2. That those who will take his/her human resources or money, without his/her consent, in the first place, will use it for his/her further exploitation, robbery and victimisation, if he/she presumes to resist their demands in the future.

3. That it is a perfect absurdity to suppose that any body of men would ever take a man’s property or resources without his consent, for any such object as they profess to take it for, viz., that of protecting him; for why should they wish to protect him, if he does not wish them to do so? To suppose that they would do so, is just as absurd as it would be to suppose that they would take his money without his consent, for the purpose of buying food or clothing for him, when he did not want it.

4. If a man wants protection, he is competent to make his own bargains for it; and nobody has any occasion to rob him, in order to “protect” him against his will.

5. That the only security men can have for their political liberty consists in their keeping their resources or money in their own pockets, until they have assurances, perfectly satisfactory to themselves, that it will be used as they wish it to be used, for their benefit, and not for their injury.

6. That no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly upon voluntary support whether from external sources or internal. All has a price tag to it.

Our problem in Sierra Leone paints a grim picture in respect of the integrity of our past and present politicians and the ruling, executive and elite classes who are now utterly condemned. It would appear that they do not have or appreciate the true values and methods of good political leadership and governance. Going down this road sooner than later will finally affect the fundamental attitude of the man in the street and would have been altered irrevocably his confidence and self esteem to participate in any political or civil dispensation with respect to country. The universal problem of all time with men of quality, integrity, empathy and a clear understanding of what drives and motivates the “average man”, is that because they need to be absolutely focused on the way forward and the overall objectives of the Big Picture – their rear is always vulnerable to attack from the less than scrupulous members of their society. Those driven by jealousy, greed and self indulgence will always be found hanging around the fringes of the “presidential court” influencing the process to their benefit and to the detriment of the society and country.

Hamlet & Richard 11 should be compulsory reading for any aspiring politicians or leader, whether it is business, politics or good governance. The bad has lessons from which we can still derive direction and attitude. As I have said many times “it is only changed people who can change things”. We can all change our attitudes to anything – it is the only real thing about ourselves that we can change. To change the attitudes of the masses … now there is a challenge. More than a challenge it is a vocation.

There is always hope. Whilst there is hope in the hearts of those who really care there is always the real chance of success. Bad causes always die. They are against the innate Laws of the Universe. They are against the Laws of our God. But the Laws of God only bring positive benefit upon those whom he considers worthy of His Trust… And that can take the journey of a lifetime. There are no longer just a few voices in the wilderness – there is now a ground swell of opinion that is demanding genuine, real and lasting CHANGE at grass roots level. History has proven time after time that the common man when motivated to challenge for the recognition of his true spirit and rights of existence cannot be denied by any power on earth. That is when the power of the universe and Gods Laws come into their own domain here on earth and mountains are moved.

Part 2: Coming up soon…….

More The Constitution Articles