The idea to create a Disability Act came about in 2005 when Professor Eldred Jones and Dr. A.D. O Wright tried to push forward for the inclusion, promotion and protection of the rights of PWDs in a draft policy and an accompanying legislation to Parliament (interviews and archival data). Two drafts were presented to the National Committee for the Rehabilitation of People with Disability (NCRPD), a committee set up in 2001 to manifest the government’s commitment to the concerns of PWDs in Sierra Leone.
The two drafts should have been followed by a National Consultative workshop, which would have brought PWDs together for their inputs on the documents and agree on a finalized Draft Bill and Policy. However, according to SLUDI’s archives, “the process was stalled due to funding challenges and Government attitudes.” In a statement to the High Commission, Professor Jones expressed dismay about the delay of the documents as Government officials dismissed the importance of disability issues but handled them with ‘shame’ and ‘guilt’ instead of as serious matters. His statement is also supported by Joseph, who remembers “the Bill was not being seriously taken by the Government” (interview #2 of 2, 3/9/2017). In fact, Sierra Leone was receiving considerable funding to support PWDs, but they continued to live on the margins as those who had access to the funding were living lavished lives. Professor Eldred Jones observed: “millions of funds were coming to Sierra Leone every year exclusively for disability issues, yet PWDs were suffering and languishing in poorly constructed homes and poor economic status whilst people controlling these funds were becoming rich” (archival data). To reverse this, Joseph, who after being elected as SLUDI’s President in June 2007, made it “[his] responsibility to make it an Act” (interview #2 of 2, 3/9/2017).
The NCRPD received funding from the World Bank in June 2007 for a two-day consultative workshop on the “Draft Policy Notes for People with Disabilities” (archival data). DPOs at regional levels gathered at the Youth Centre in Freetown to discuss the Act’s contents. Civil society
25 SLUDI has also been able to mobilize its constituents in other key areas: 1) ratifying the United Nations
Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2011); 2 ) securing Sierra Leone Grants (SLG) for disabled students in tertiary education; 3) attaining scholarships for PWDs to perform Hajj/pilgrimage to Holy Land of Mecca every year (from 2001-2017); 4) establishing easy movement of PWDs to and from the Lungi airport area (2015); 5) aiding the movement of mobility aids and other assistive devices for PWDs in the Port Loko and the Kambia Districts (2015); 6) appointing a PWD as board member of the National Youth Commission (2015); 7) raising reasonable awareness about disability issues; 8) increasing representations at local and international conferences; 9) writing a Complaint Manual, in collaboration with the Human Rights Commission (HRC) and the NCPD (2017); and 10) drafting of the Disability Manifesto (2017).
organizations (CSOs) working with disabled people, such as One Family People (OFP), various human rights consultants, MSWGCA and NGOs were invited to help aid the process. A ‘hybrid’ strategy of local and Western activism tools was used (de Waal & Ibreck, 2013; Brandes & Engels, 2011; Larmer, 2010), or what Tilly (1978) calls, “repertoires of contention” to persuade the public, PWDs and the Government to support its claims. They ranged from seminars, going on media platforms, to one-to-one interactions. Joseph recounts, “We conducted a series of seminars and other engagements with DPOs” (interview 3/9/2017). Adding to that, Ibrahim, a SLUDI executive said, “We did a lot of radio
discussions, television, workshops, one to one engagement, and getting more […] PWDs to join the Union” (interview 11/9/2017). There were also speeches about the importance of unity. Mustapha explained, “We preached on the issue of peace, about coming together—what would be the benefits at the end of the day” (9/11/2017). The end result was that more PWDs joined in on the action and together, they carefully deliberated on their key issues. These were: (a) the right from discrimination in employment; (b) the right to access public buildings; and (c) the right to free education (archival data; also mentioned in Adeola, 2015). PWDs then attempted to table the Bill to Parliament alongside the promotion of women with disabilities’ rights (archival data). However, due to the 2007 elections, it did not go through as planned.
Following the election of Ernest Bai Koromo in 2007, PWDs tried to send the Bill to Parliament again. Yet again, it was rejected for unknown reasons, prompting PWDs to not only stage a protest at State House but to also promote it through mass sensitization of PWDs and the public nationwide. For some PWDs, getting the Disability Act passed became a ‘serious’ ‘advocacy business’, particularly because it was important that PWDs speak unilaterally to the Government of Sierra Leone (GoSL) as a group. “It was an advocacy business that we all spoke with one voice, one language as a pressure group for government to take cognizance that it was important for the Disability Act to be passed,” said an anonymous SLAB member working on the document (interview 16/1/2018). By speaking with one voice, PWDs realized they could then achieve their aim. Mustapha explained, “Getting the Act passed was a serious affair. Our advocacy for the Act was built around the idea that without unity we knew that we would not make it. It’s only when we are united that we can be successful in achieving it” (interview 9/11/2017). Through more collective sensitization of PWDs, the Act was eventually enacted in 2009.
Although the Act “continues to be hailed as a praiseworthy and enduring achievement” (archival data), PWDs argue that it still remains to be implemented and its contents are still ‘not specific enough’.
With respect to its content, the Act does not address specific issues. For instance, on the electoral process, it remains to be clarified of how PWDs can vote and be voted for. Rather it only touches on making provisions for PWDs to access polling stations and registration centers. Joseph explained, “The Act does not specifically address the electoral process for PWDs, that is in terms of
voting and being voted for. What is in the Act is only focusing on accessibility to polling stations, registration centers” (interview #2 of 2, 9/11/2017). Under this specific issue, PWDs wanted to see ‘affirmative action quotas’ for PWDs within political parties, Parliament and other decision-making bodies. Without being voted for, PWDs cannot contribute to any nationwide decision-making processes.
The keywords in this agenda became the precise advocacy goals in the 2018 election campaigns. To foment their goal for success (Dobson, 2001), PWDs not only agreed on a minimum of 5% political representation (3% for men and 2% for women) because ‘Rome was not built in a day’ kind of thinking, they also consistently went on TV and radio programs weekly to strategically reinforce their message. For example, in a televised interview, Ibrahim said, “We are not only making the call now, we have been making it. This time we are not only calling for 5% but a minimum of 5%. We have people that can deliver well. So why can’t we appoint them?” (Tv interview dated 25/8/2017). They also produced and presented the Disability Manifesto to political parties with the 5% figure enshrined in it. Despite their efforts, not a single PWD was appointed or won any political positions.
PWDs said that the Act was not implemented due to a lack of political will. Common sense has it that once something becomes a law that it should take immediate effect. However, this has yet to
happen with the Act. A Disability Awareness Action Group (DAAG)26 member said, “There is no
political will. If an Act has been passed, there should not be a five-year window period before it is implemented. Once something has been established it should start immediately” (interview 24/11/2017). Part of the failure is also tied to the Government appointing individuals, particularly ‘outsiders’ to run
the National Commission for Persons with Disabilities (NCPD) 27 in order for the Act to be
implemented. A member from House of Jesus (HoJ) said, “The first mistake the Government did was to choose who to become the Chief Commissioner after the Act was established. I believe the Government should have allowed SLUDI and the DPOs to choose who to run their affairs” (interview 24/11/2017). A SLAB member also chimed in, “The Commissioner is an outsider, he is from America. He has spent all of his life in America. He only knows about the early days when he was a school going pupil, a youth and a teacher. Since he has gone, many changes have happened then” (interview 12/11/2017). Next to appointing a Commissioner, the Government also made the mistake to appoint regional commissioners to manage the Act’s implementation. The same SLAB member added, “After the Commissioner was appointed, [ex-President Ernest Bai Koroma] then chose the regional commissioners, that was a second mistake by Government” (interview 12/11/2017). All this is to say that there is a gap in policy
implementation for the Act. Not only can the gap be traced to the vagueness of the policy itself, but also
26 Since this is government sensitive information, I have removed the names of participants to protect their
identities.
27 The National Commission for Persons with Disabilities (NCPD) is a Government agency whose establishment
to the people Government has chosen to implement it. To enhance its implementation, PWDs want to see issues specified and have the choice to appoint the individuals themselves, specifically individuals who are versed in the policy environment.