Ms Edwina Hawa Jamiru vs The State
interest. The Law requires the Police authorities to bring an arrested person before a court and either charge or release that person(s) within a specific time frame,
depending on the nature of the suspected offence. The practice of detaining an
“INVITED PERSON (S)” in Sierra Leone for over seventy-two hours {(72 hrs i.e. Three
days (3) and up to Ten (10 days) for a suspected felony offences)} as the law requires, raises serious Human Rights and Constitutional issues.
Edwina Hawa Jamiru: on a Bright day
Before going any further, let me lay out the distinction between an “INVITATION” Vs. an
“ARREST” in Sierra Leone of a person(s) of interest to the police.
INVITATION: Legally speaking, a Police “INVITATION” literally implies that the person of interest’s attendance is “VOLUNTARY”. One is not in custody; one is free to leave at any
time; and one is entitled to legal representation when attending such “INVITATION” asthe demands. (Sierra Leone Constitution, Section 17 (1) (e & f).
The Police usually issue an “INVITATION” when they want to clarify a situation or gather more facts before deciding if an arrest is necessary.
ARREST: An arrest involves a physical touching or confinement, or a submission to
custody by words or action. A person(s) once arrested is officially in police custody and
is subject to strict constitutional time limit for detention before being brought to court (i.e. three days or 72 hours – (Section 17 (30 (b) 1919 Sierra Leone Constitution).
The Inspector General of S L Police
What we observe as an occurring practice in Sierra Leone, the police many a time use
the term “INVITATION”, to avoid the immediate legal constraints and procedural
safeguards associated with a formal arrest. Deceitfully so, they “INVITE” the targeted
Person(s) of Interest” for questioning (as in the ongoing case of Ms Edwina Hawa Jamiru
– the case by extension, of Justice Momoh Jah Stevens Vs Ms Edwina Hawa Jamaru.)
However, if a person(s) is physically prevented from leaving the Police Station, when invited, that person(s) is effectively under arrest or detention, regardless of the
terminology used. We have been seeing that tactics at play in Sierra Leone in recent
times.
Having kept Ms Edwina Hawa Jamiru , {the twenty one (21) year old mother of Justice
Momoh Jah Stevens baby (as confirmation by the infamous DNA TEST showing 99.999%
of him being the father)}, for more than four days without her freedom to leave the Police
Station, (nor being formerly charged of any offence), one could conclusively state that
she (Edwina) has been effectively detained, even though she has not been officially
arrested.
Legality of her Detention: The 1991 Sierra Leone Constitution Act 6 of 1991, stipulates
that any person arrested or detained must be brought before a competent court within
24 hours (Section 17 (3)(b). Thus, by holding her for over three (3) days now, the Police
has violated this constitutional provision. The constitutional further stipulates that no
person(s) should be held in custody beyond this [72 hour] period without the express
authority of the court: another police violation of the constitution.
The legality of Ms Edwina Hawa Jamiru thus far, could be challenged via a petition to the
High Court by her Legal representatives – her Lawyers, or ANY Friend of the court – for a
review of the detention – a right guaranteed by the Sierra Leone Constitution. By the way
she has been treated, her status is effectively now seen as “DETAINED WITHOUT
PROCESS”, meaning that the Police have BY PASSED the constitutional requirement to
seek Judicial Approval for Extended Questioning.
These constitutional violations should be immediately leveraged by her Legal
representatives, to demand her release or the Police formalise the arrest and bring her
before a Magistrate Court with no further delay.
The Cyber violations: The alleged cyber-crimes for which the Police “INVITED” Ms
Edwina Hawa Jamiru, is likely to be classified as a misdemeanour. If this is so, the
limit the Police must bring her to a court is 72 hours (or 3 Days); for a Felony it is
Ten (10 Days). However, these limits are contingent on the 24hours court
appearance rule being met. Having held her for more than four days, renders the
Police action a serious breach of her rights and that of the 1991 Constitutional
provision. Throughout her detention within this period, she should have been
entitled to consult and be represented at all stages, by a legal practitioner or other
qualified persons provided by the State.
What is Ms Jamiru’s position so for on this? For the Police to hold and detain Ms Edwina
Hawa Jamiru, for over three (3) days as the law provides, without formerly arresting
her and bring her before a court is a violation of her fundamental Human Rights as
enshrined in the Sierra Leone Constitution and the Human Rights Acts. Her
detention is illegal as she is in the Police under the false premise of a
“VOLUNTARY INVITATION”, and not free to leave. The Police cannot detain an
“INVITED” person (s) indefinitely or beyond twenty-four (24) hours constitutional
limit without a court order. This violation of the constitution is ongoing, and it is
totally unacceptable.
Misuse of Mental Health Claims: While the Police can detain an individual who
appears to have a Mental Health Disorder, and is in immediate need of care or
control, (often under specific Mental Health Acts, which may vary by jurisdiction,
but, generally require a professional assessment within 24 hours), this power is
for the detained individual person’s safety and NOT for indefinite Police
custody or use as a punitive measure.
POLICE STATION IS NOT A PLACE OF SAFETY! The Police Station is generally not the appropriate legal venue for a prolonged mental health assessment. Detainees
suspected of Mental Health issues, should ideally be taken to a ‘place of safety,
usually hospital or clinic, for assessment by a qualified medical professional. It is not for anyone to second guess the individual’s mental capacity if not qualified so to do.
So far, the information going around, is that the police have not formerly arrested Ms
Edwina Hawa Jamiru, nor formerly detained her under the relevant Mental Health
provisions. No medical examination and/or assessment by a competent/qualified doctor or Mental Health Professional has been done, nor has she been brought before a Magistrate within the24 hours (since effectively detained at the Police station) to request a Court Order which would require medical evidence - for the court to decide.
The Police and Many Social Media Posters have labelled Ms Edwina Hawa Jamiru an
“Unstable. It seems that the Police are using this claim of ‘Mental instability’ to justify her continued otherwise ‘unlawful detention’; thus, circumventing the strict 24- hour constitutional limit for bringing a detainee to court. While her detention is highly problematic, it is most likely illegal for the following reasons:
“Invitation” does not equal to lawful detention. As stated earlier above, “Invitation” is voluntary and not compulsory. As Ms Edwina Hawa Jamiru has been held for
over three (3) days now and not allowed to leave voluntarily, she is thereby “effectively detained”; whether the Police call it an “arrest” or an “invitation” the terminology does not override the constitutional provisions nor the rights she has. Secondly, by holding her over three days violates the provisions of the 1991
constitution which mandates that any person detained must be brought before a
court within 24-hours. Her detention for over the constitutional time limit without
a Court appearance is a clear violation of this fundamental provision and her right. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 9 provides that no one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
It is not in the hands of the Police to decide when a Court determines stability. They
must obey Section 17 (3) (b) of the 1991 constitution and bring her to the court
first. The holding in detention over the time limit is a clear breach of the provision
and her lawyers must emphasise that. The International Convention of Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR - Article 9 :3) also states: “Anyone arrested or detained on
a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a Judge… and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release.
What the Police are doing have done to Ms Edwina Hawa Jamiru so far is purely and is
simply an ‘abuse of power’ and an illegal detention. He legal team shoul immediately proceed with an Habeas Curpus Application to challenge the lawfulness of her detention and secure her immediate release and not play games to KILL the case against Justice Momoh Jah Stevens with the pretension
that she is mentally unstable, when this judge is so deep in in her accusation of his sexually exploiting her, consistently accusing him of raping her, Defamed her character and added he “DID BAD/EVIL THINGS TO ME”!, and other suspected sexual offences under the Sexual Offences Act sections 4 and/sections 6 - 2008 (as Amended in 2019). Not leaving out Offences under the Anti- Corruption Acts
(ACC) of 2008 & 2019 –
Sections 42 Abuse of Office;
Section 43 – Abuse of position
Section 44 Public Officer Using Office for (sexual) advantage and subject to the ACC Act Section 134 – suspension of a Public Officer charged with corruption; in this case sexual corruption. We hope the ACC Commissioner is observing.
Ms Edwina Hawa Jamiru has rights to Legal Representation and Information. Her rights
in detention should have been respected from the moment she could not leave the Police Station and provided for by the State if she is incapacitated to provide one. The Sierra Leone Constitution Section 17 (2) guarantees the right to be informed of the reasons for her arrest or detention and the right to consult a legal practitioner. Her legal team/lawyers ensure these rights were upheld by the
Police.
Ms Edwina Hawa Jamiru also like any other Sierra Leoneans, have a Right to Humane
Treatment and Dignity regardless of what anyone thinks of her. Using the Mental
Health claim as an excuse for prolonged detention in police cells is a degrading
and inhumane treatment and indirect punishment. This breaches the UN
Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) Article (5): “No one shall be subjected to
torture or to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. This also
equate with the Right of Vulnerable Individuals (Mental Health Aspects). If the
Police genuinely have concerns, the legal pathway must be followed, focusing on
care, and not punitive detention in an inappropriate Police cell environment.
Equally, the UN Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness (as the
police and some Social Media pundits are alleging), then the stipulation of these
principles must be adhered to. Individuals should be assessed by qualified professionals and treated in appropriate therapeutic environment, NOT indefinitely held in Police Lockups. The burden is on the State to provide a VALID MEDICAL NECESSITY and follow established medical procedure via Court order.
Following from the above, Ms Edwina Hawa Jamiru’s continued detention is a severe
breach of the Laws of Sierra Leone and International Human Rights Standards, which could compel the High Court to order her immediate release, or a lawful transfer to a medical facility via proper court channels.
Ms Edwina Hawa Jamiru is a young mother with has Justice Momoh Jah Stevens‘ 4-5
months old baby. This infant’s best interests are paramount in all decisions concerning the child, a principle recognised in Sierra Leone Laws.
Violation of the ‘Best Interest of the Child’ is enshrined in the Sierra Leon’s Child Rights
Act 2007. And the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which Sierra Leone has ratified. All decisions affecting this child (and any other children) must be considered in their best interest as the primary concern. A police lockup is a highly inappropriate and potentially dangerous environment for any infant, impacting their health, hygiene, nutrition and
development. If the child is not with her mother, that brings out another complicated factor.
The problem of Health and development Rights must also be considered. Police
detention conditions typically lack adequate health care, sanitation and nutrition suitable for a nursing infant. This places the baby’s health at significant risk (if the baby is with her at the Police Station) and violates her right to the maximum extent of survival and development (section 21, Child Rights Act). This leads me to point out the Right to Special Care and Assistance provided in Article 25 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This states that “Motherhood and
Childhood are entitled to special care and assistance”. This current DRAMATIC
situation with Ms Edwina Hawa Jamuru versus the State, denied the baby this
essential care and must be seriously considered. By extension, let’s look at the
Arbitrary Detention of a Child. This baby, having committed NO OFFENCE, is
effectively being detained arbitrarily by circumstances, (if the infant is with her
mother in the Police Station). This is a violation of the Child’s Liberty Rights.
Further violations regarding Ms Edwina Hawa Jamiru are the Right of Maternal Aspects.
The detention also violates her Rights toa new, nursing mother, exacerbating her
stress and vulnerability. Equally, her Right to Family Unity and Parental Responsibility while separation might be ordered in certain circumstances, the initial placement of the mother and child in prolonged Police detention without a proper Court Order is an infringement of family life and parental responsibility.
This violation also extends to the further Risk of Psychological Trauma. Thestress, anxiety and trauma, experienced by Ms Edwina Hawa Jamiru, due to her unlawful detention and concern for her very young baby, couple with all the a she has gone through including the DNA Test Case and previous encounter with the Police and Couth Bench warrant of arrest,, can directly impact on her mental health and, by extension, the wellbeing of the infant baby through maternal distress. Ms Jamiru must not ne subject to further Inhumane or Degrading Treating. Keeping a nursing mother and her infant in Police custody conditions foran extended, unlawful period can be is tantamount to inhuman and degrading
treatment, which is strictly prohibited under (section (20) of the Sierra Leone
Constitution 1991.
The court’s attention should be drawn by her Lawyers or legal representative, that the
Police have a DUTY OF CARE to ensure that the infant child is safe and that e continuing to hold both mother and child in an unsuitable environment is an ongoing Human Rights violation. He Lawyers must expedite the Habeas Corpus Application, and this should demand he immediate release of both mother and baby together, to an appropriate safe environment. The Baby’s right is indeed
paramount and compelling. I bring to focus, the Urgency and illegality in challenging the Police actions.
THE SIDE CHICK Vs THE JUDGE
------------------------------------------------------------------
About the Author:
The Author Israel Ojekeh Parper Snr. Is a Lecturer in Futher and Higher Education. A father of girls and boys, an elder brother of Seven Sisters (five still alive) and
many female cousins and nieces and friends. He experienced caring for some of his sisters at the age of 22 – 27 with great responsibility.
He is a Lecturer who has had long experience is education of mixed classes of male and female and students - teenagees and matured and is mindful of general behaviours of students of all characters and Background.
This Case is one of great lesson of social, religious, psychological, legal, Safeguarding and ethics. He views the episodes and happenings with interest and evaluates it contexts and contents from many disiplines without prejudice to the parties concerned.
