By Ebi Kesiena
The ECOWAS Court of Justice in Abuja has ruled that Sierra Leone’s loitering laws violate fundamental human rights and has ordered the country to repeal or amend them.
Justice Edward Asante, delivering the verdict, emphasized that these laws infringe upon rights to freedom of movement and equality, contravening the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
The court, therefore, ordered Sierra Leone to undertake legislative reforms to amend, modify, or outrightly repeal the country’s loitering laws to comply with its human rights obligations under the African Charter.
According to the Community Court, the laws violate the right to non-discrimination and equal protection under Articles 2 and 3(1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
It added that the laws also imposed unwarranted restrictions on the people’s freedom of movement, which is contrary to Article 12(1) of the African Charter.
The court further noted that vague terms in the loitering laws, such as “idle” and “disorderly,” created opportunities for arbitrary enforcement.
This, it said, perpetuated discrimination against economically disadvantaged individuals and did not meet the standards of legality, necessity, and proportionality in a democratic society.
It further ordered Sierra Leone to comply with the country’s obligations under Articles 1, 2, 3(1), and 12(1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that a Sierra Leonean NGO, Advocaid Ltd, had filed the suit on 12 April 2022, challenging certain provisions of Sierra Leone’s Public Order Act.
The organisation also challenged the country’s Summary Conviction Offences Ordinance, and the Criminal Procedure Act, which authorise the police to arrest any person found loitering in a public place and cannot give a good account of himself or herself.
The applicant contended that maintaining and enforcing these laws violated the principles of non-discrimination, equality before the law, and freedom of movement, particularly concerning impoverished and marginalised people.
The court, however, ordered each party to bear their own costs in the suit.
