What Went Wrong in 50 Years

Concord Times (Freetown)

Alpha Rashid Jalloh

9 May 2011

analysis

Freetown — Sierra Leone’s 50 years independence celebration has created a mood of excitement across the country but three-fourths of the population does not even know the significance of the event.

As President Ernest Bai Koroma himself had rightly said during the celebrations, this is not just a time for celebrations but a time for reflection over certain crucial issues.

But what anyone who is au fait with the actualities in the country must not be oblivious of is the fact that with a 65% illiteracy rate and historical blindness even among the elites, the country’s progress had been stagnated by several factors in post- independence period. But there are some problems that emanate as far back as the pre-independence period. First and most prominent among them is the dichotomy between Krios (descendants of the freed slaves from the Americas in the 1800s) and the kontri’s (inhabitants of the provinces).

Krio-Kontri Dichotomy

So far as the Krios were concerned, Freetown was Sierra Leone and a British colony while the Protectorate was merely a British Protected Colony. Therefore, the two were separate states, especially when they were governed by different laws. The Colony of Freetown was founded and “bought” for the freed slaves and they therefore believed that they had proprietary rights over it based on the “contractual agreement” with King Naimbana (The King who they claimed to have sold the land to the settlers). To date, books written by Krio authors reflect this view and sometimes put emphasize on it though it had been rejected by some Kontri academics, who argue that the contract with Naimbana–and even King Tom–was void because they had no right to sell (the land). Secondly, there was no consensus ad idem (meeting of minds) at the time of the transfer of the land. While the King and their subordinates viewed the freed slaves as strangers who needed to be

“lodged” and should therefore pay homage to their hosts in time of need according to traditional laws, the freed slaves or settlers were of the opinion that the land had been “sold” to them. This later ensued into a war in which the Krios with more sophisticated weapons succeeded to rout the Themnes from the Colony of Freetown. But the belief among many Krio academics was (and is) that the purpose of “buying” the land was merely to create a “Colony of Freedom” for the freed slaves. In fact, the Krios viewed colonialism as unjustified since that was not the dream of Granville Sharpe and others who advocated for the freed slaves to have a free country of their own. The settlers put up several resistances against colonial subjugation which were quelled by the use of force.

When the Colony settled down, and a colonial administration set up, the Krios were the first to acquire education and therefore had several advantages over the Kontris (called natives by then) of the Hinterland in colonial and early post-colonial periods. But it dawned on the colonial masters that there was a need to put the Kontris at par with the Krios if an equitable development system were to be established. So, opportunities were offered to some of them to acquire education up to university level in the UK, Canada and other British advanced colonies.

By 1922, John Karefa-Smart, who was among the first Kontris to be educated, and few others had formed the Committee of Protectorate Elites. Karefa-Smart was among those who welcomed Governor Stevenson and put demands to him for “Kontri representation” in the Legislative Assembly, which had been established by Stevenson’s predecessor Governor Blackhall.

Keeping to his promise, the Stevenson Constitution (1924 Constitution) was introduced, giving the Kontris the opportunity to take part in the Legislative Assembly of the Colony of Freetown. It incidentally invoked fiery passions from the Krio politicians, especially Herbert Bankole Bright, who described them as foreigners. Unfortunately, the first set of Kontris given the opportunity where the chiefs, who were stark illiterates. They included Bai Konpan of Koya and Chief Tucker. These were chiefs who could not speak any other language other than Themne and Mende, something which Bankole Bright sneered on in his objections in the Legislative Assembly. Bankole Bright, among other issues, capitalized on it and referred to it as a “violation of constitutional principles” and the sovereignty of a nation: bringing foreign persons into another country’s Legislative Assembly. To him, Freetown (Sierra Leone) was different from the Protectorate, another

country. The colonialists, however, were in pursuit of an integrationist policy because they had realized the mistake of separating the land into two and thus alienating one set of people from the “advanced administration” which they had introduced. But the final straw that broke the camel’s back was the 1949 Constitution implemented in 1951. It paved the way for the first multiparty democracy in Sierra Leone. It ultimately gave Kontris the right to be in the House of Representatives through party politics. The Krios objected claiming that they had been practicing democracy all along and had all the mechanisms in place for democratic practice and should therefore be given more preference in representation. The Kontris argued that representation should be based on the quantum of the population. But the question asked to date is: Was Sierra Leone ready for multi party democracy at that time? Were the Kontris au fait with the tenets of

democracy? What were they told by the Kontri politicians? Milton, Albert, Siaka and others? Instead of ideological approaches to issues, the two sets of people – Krios and Kontris – addressed issues and formed parties based on regional and tribal alliances. That was the beginning of Sierra Leone’s long drawn political problems. Today’s problems could not be divorced from that starting point. While other countries like Algeria, Libya, Ethiopia, started their changes based on ideological or nationalistic perceptions, Sierra Leone started its own based on tribal and regional judgment of issues. And that trend has continued to date. The perception of Sierra Leone being Freetown is even manifested by the Mende man today. When he says “salon” he is referring to Freetown. And when it comes to development everything is for Freetown. The provincial areas continue to retrogress every day to the extent that there has to be a mass rural to urban migration.

Regionalism

So, by 1961, the problem was not just a matter between Kontris and Krios, it had degenerated into South and North dichotomy. In 1960 when independence was granted (and should take effect in 1961), the stage was already set for regional and tribal confrontation. In the 1962 elections, (the first after independence), the All Peoples Congress (APC) that had been a transformation of the Elections Before Independence Movement led by Siaka Stevens, tried to garner support mainly from the North where it swept majority of the votes while the Sierra Leone Peoples Party (SLPP) first formed as a rival to the Krio parties of the Colony of Freetown, tried to maintain its support in the South. So instead of nationalism, it was Mendeism, Themneism, Limbaism or Krioism that was preached. In all this, the Konos were left to swing like a pendulum and compelled by circumstances to look for opportunistic relations with political parties. That has been the trend to date.

When elections come, Konos would look where the stakes are high and make their choice.

Artificial Boundaries and Alienation of Certain Tribes

But a more crucial problem was the artificial boundaries created by the colonialist thus alienating a large percentage of certain tribes like Yalunka, Koranko, Fullah, Kissis, Daema, Vai, Madingo and Susu. These are tribes that ended been found in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. But the rest were in the other two countries while those who found themselves in Sierra Leone found themselves alienated and been described as foreigners, a situation akin to that of Ivory Coast, Rwanda, Burundi and DR Congo. Over the years, some mischievous politicians who found it difficult to outsmart their opponents had used the tribal weapon to vilify certain tribes. In West Africa, Sierra Leone has been lucky not to be engulfed in a tribal war like Mali, Liberia and Ivory Coast even though some politicians had tried to invite such a situation by brainwashing the average minds. But it is an imminent threat to the future of Sierra Leone. Unfortunately Sierra Leone has no

think tank. It merely groped into the dark alley since independence thus having no definite direction.

AllAfrica – All the Time