Constitutional Development in Sierra Leone – The Blackhall Experience
Henry Smeathman, the botanist, recommended Sierra Leone as the most advantageous place for the establishment of a settlement.1 Established as a Crown Colony in 1808, the Sierra Leone peninsula and the areas directly to the south of it were governed by a Governor-in-Council who combined both Executive and Legislative authority. This system prevailed until 1863 when the Executive and Legislative functions were divided between an Executive Council and a Legislative Council. Though the new councils marked a step away from the earlier form of colonial autocracy, it is argued that they were not intended as a move towards self-government.2 The Colony of Sierra Leone then was inspired by the humanitarian opposition to the institution of slavery and nurtured by the British determination to end the Slave Trade. By the middle of the eighteen century, the system of slavery was not too popular with the English. On several occasions, public attention was drawn to the question as to whether a slave should become free after arriving on English soil. The philanthropist Granville Sharp struck an effective blow in 1772 when “a test case was provided in the case of a slave named James Somerset, who had been brought to England from Jamaica by his master and had subsequently run away from him”3. The principles laid by Lord Chief Justice Mansfield of the English High Court in the case Somerset v. Stewart implied that any slave setting foot in England should be deemed a freeman. He noted that “the state of slavery… is incapable of being introduced on any reasons…I cannot say this is allowed or approved by the law of England and therefore the black man must be discharged”.4 This famous Mansfield Decision stimulated the Christian philanthropy of men like Sharp and Wilberforce.
The consequence of this judgement was the liberation of hundreds of slaves living in England. During the American War of Independence (1776-1983), the British encouraged slaves in America to desert their masters to join the British army in return for freedom and land. After the War – which Britain lost- some of these slaves went to Nova Scotia (Canada) and some to London. In London, these former slaves were beset with many problems. Their freedom definitely did not mean equality with British subjects. Often destitute, most of these freed slaves wandered about the streets of England distressing the kindhearted and men of property. They posed an awkward social problem. The victor and hero of the Somerset case, Granville Sharp, maintained a growing number of these slaves collectively referred to as the Black Poor. It did not take long for Granville Sharp to realize that the problem was more than private charity would cope with. As a remedial agency, a considerable number of philanthropists formed a Committee for relieving the Black Poor in 1986 known as the Committee of the Black Poor. This Committee was chaired by Jonas Hanway. It was during this period of uncertainty that a certain individual Dr. Henry Smeathman, alias flycatcher, who had lived for about three years in the vicinity of Sierra Leone strongly proposed the area as a suitable settlement. In 1785, this botanist certified Sierra Leone unhealthy for the establishment of a concrete settlement. However, in February 1786, he declared the area suitable for human habitation, crop production and cattle rearing. His vision for the settlement was principally economic and commercial. Granville Sharp, the leading abolitionist, Jonas Hanway, John and Thomas Clarkson (and subsequently Thomas Fowell Buxton) resorted to a scheme of colonialization. Inadequate finances prevented them from acting along. They appealed to the British government for assistance which the latter willingly gave since it wanted to end the problems posed by the Black Poor.
The Colony of Sierra Leone (which started on 11th May, 1787), began, not as a Colony of Britain, but rather, as a fully independent colony with an African governor, Richard Weaver. Needless to state, this was the dawn or advent of a brand new experiment in the relationship between the Africans and the Europeans. This experiment was a reverse drive of the so-called African Diaspora for “instead of the old ‘middle passage’ traffic when negroes were taken from Africa and sold into slavery in the markets of Europe and the New World, the new ‘middle passage’ traffic of these years consisted in Negroes making the return journey from Europe and the New World, not for purposes of slavery, but that they might have the opportunity of living their lives as freemen on their own native continent”.5 This settlement was no doubt a tiny one but had nearly all the essentials of a state. This Governor and the Common Council might have been dubbed President and Parliament respectively. The settlement was administered under the old English system of frankpledge whereby the colony was divided into tithings and hundreds. Tithingmen and Hundredors (who were duly elected representatives) made rules for the good government of the settlement. These rules may be called laws. In effect, there existed an independent political community composed of free and independent blackmen (and women).6 Such a brief discussion reminds one of the ancient Greek city state which practised democracy, though differently. Simply defined, “democracy in Africa or anywhere else, is government by the people”7. As Mr. Guy Clutton-Brock – writing about a typical African village community – put it, “the elders sit under the big tree and talk until they agree”8. This form of democracy (similar to that practiced by the City States of Ancient Greece) was slightly different from that practiced by the settlers in Sierra Leone. In the latter, the right of the settlers to make political decisions was not exercised directly but “through representatives chosen by and responsible to them, known as representative democracy”9. The early constitution of Sierra Leone has its importance as the first instance in modern history of a self-governing colonial community of non-European population, where colour was no disqualification and negro freedom were allowed the political and civil rights of Europeans. As hundredors and tithingmen the black settlers of Sierra Leone had fulfilled administrative duties that had developed into legislative duties; as jurymen they had shown judgement and intelligence that won the praise of Europeans.”10 The constitutional right or privilege to elect representatives was only a respite.
No tags for this post.Frightening Aspects of Barack Obama – A Historical and Constitutional Survey Based Upon Reason
What currently scares me so about Barack Hussain Obama are his generic public proclamations of proposed economic and political change, which, of course, were responsible, along with his teleprompter oratory, for 54 % of the electorate putting him dubiously in the White House (his eligibility is still suspect). Every reasonable citizen wants change that is for the better, but Obama’s ready acceptance of, and apparent adoration for, the federal Executive Branch institutions that have created, and are still creating, the awful problems which the United States republic inexorably faces, politically and economically are very frightening. Shortly after being elected, President-Elect Obama made a statement to the media concerning, among other things, the Central Intelligence Agency and other quasi-government organizations, which need to be closely scrutinized in light of accurate historical facts, of which Obama should be cognizant. He said, as reported in a recent “Washington Post” article, that he “admires the past achievements of the CIA and considers it an honorable intelligence organization, that the Federal Reserve is essential to the financial security of the United States, and that the Council on Foreign Relations and the Tri-lateral Commission are indispensable to the American government. Well, concerning the history of the Company (the famous nickname of the CIA), there have been quite a few polices, or laws, created and implemented unilaterally by the Executive Branch, via the CIA, which were quietly and covertly authorized, and not legislated, by the Congresses which convened during the twenty-or-so years immediately following the Second World War. These de facto laws, if you want to call them that, were then and even now unknown to most citizens of the American republic during what was known as the Cold War. Even if you had been regularly sitting in the galleries of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives during open floor deliberations of proposed laws and resolutions, between 1946 and 1966, there were Senate and House bills decided in closed select committees (those comprising a few privileged senators, representatives, and “appointed” executive officers) which were never openly debated, nor voted-on and passed, by the assembled general congresses, but which determined U.S. domestic and foreign policy. In many cases these “laws” and policies were also totally unknown to most of the senators and representatives composing the general Senate and House of Representatives.
One of these clandestine policies which was concocted and operationally planned by the CIA, then secretly authorized by President Dwight D. Eisenhower and, lastly, described generically to only a few senators then constituting the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence as a project authorized by Presidential fiat, was “Operation Ajax,” the 1953 covert CIA overthrow of the democratically chosen Iranian government and its very popular Prime Minister, and the subsequent installation of the Shah of Iran as the pro-Western Iranian leader, all for the control of Iranian oil. Why would I describe this unilateral Presidential fiat as de jure law?
Well, take for example a proposition that a particular day to be set-aside as a public holiday throughout the United States, so that government employees might be compensated for their time-off spent on such an occasion. A law creating the holiday must, supposedly, be legislated by Congress in order for it to be an official holiday. All of this government legislative formality, in the formation of a law, is considered essential in the creation of a mere holiday. Yet, a federal government agency, supposedly controlled directly by the Executive Branch, covertly plans, organizes, and implements the overthrow (with the help of British MI6) of a foreign democratically governed nation-state without the consent of the general Congress, and the act, in and of itself, is not considered law? Well, that’s not quite all. A quasi-legal presidential executive order, which is disseminated openly, has the same “traditional” authority as that of a statute. And what is, such, a statute if not a law created by one person having legislative, executive, and judicial authority residing jointly in his hands? If you care to recall, the internment of Japanese-Americans during the Second World War, which was executed through Executive Order of Franklin Roosevelt and implemented by the FBI and the domestic offices of the OSS, which later became the CIA, was never questioned as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court until after the awful tragic damage, arising from the order, had been done. Then it was, subsequently, declared unconstitutional. The way executive orders got started was that the 1st Congress declined questioning an order, or fiat, from George Washington creating a federal mint for the coinage of U.S. money. That quasi-legal proclamation became some sort of precedent which might have prompted Abraham Lincoln, know as the compassionate dictator during the American Civil War, to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, which was also, later, declared an unconstitutional; but not until the damage to the republic was done.
Problems Deteriorating Education in Pakistan
Various research studies have indicated the psycho-social problems of the students, teachers, planners and managers working in the public and private sector of education in Pakistan. These problems can be studied under in three domains i.e. home-centered problems, community-centered problems and school-centered problems.
Although, the Quaid-e-Azam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, in his message delivered in the first Education Conference 1947, categorically stressed on taking practical steps in reshaping the whole education system of the country, yet the situation regarding the education sector of Pakistan has been very uncertain and critical till yet. The commissions and policies till the recent years have beautifully worked out various strategies and plans for enhancing and changing the curriculum, giving quality education, preparing standard textbooks, resolving the problem of medium of instruction, streamlining the planning and management of the institutions, but due to the policies and reforms without implementation, the mismatch in public and private systems, the teaching of languages only and the polarization and existence of pressure groups have weakened not only the whole education system of Pakistan but the other institutions and organizations also.
Moreover, it is a fact that the attitudes of teacher, the response of student and the behavior of manager do have a crucial role in making the personality of the individuals and social progress, but in addition to this some physical problems that still exist here are the overcrowded classrooms, inadequate teaching materials, poor staffing, absence of equipped libraries and laboratories, and lack of physical facilities like playgrounds, drinking water, washrooms, recreational, common, medical and retiring rooms and furniture etc. This alarming situation has caused an awkward backwardness of the education system in the country.
No tags for this post.