Implementation beyond banning: the prohibition of child marriage in Sierra Leone

Sorie-BanguraAuthor: Sorie Bangura
Manager, Save the Children, Sierra Leone

In 2022, during the third cycle of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) on Sierra Leone, the UPR working group urged Sierra Leone to ‘allocate adequate budgetary resources for the promotion and protection of children’s rights; harmonising laws to prevent and end child marriage, and undertaking comprehensive awareness-raising on the negative consequences of child marriage on girls; and enforcing the Child Rights Act and enabling the bill on the prohibition of child marriage.’ Fast forward to June 2024, Sierra Leone has enacted the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2024. The Act which prohibits and criminalises marrying anyone under the age of 18 also seek to protect the rights and development of girls which has long been violated and hindered.

Read the rest of this entry »


Love in a Time of Ebola: Africa deserves a human rights determination

Author: Humphrey Sipalla
Freelance editor

When the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared “a public health emergency of international concern” in the three fragile West African states of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, the walls fast closed on them and their peoples. Flight bans, citizen entry bans and ripple effects on trade have been announced by African countries, as well as globally. So severe have been the restrictions that vital energy and food supplies have dwindled, with riots breaking out in some areas. The affected countries have pleaded with “the world” to not inflict collective punishment on their populations, and indeed future.

These real world events have grounding in probably the most innocuously titled yet powerful treaty in the world. Nope, not the UN Charter, not the Geneva or Vienna Conventions… the International Health Regulations (IHR 2005). Usually, ‘regulations’ is legalese for subsidiary legislation. But these regulations treat probably the most incendiary issues in human society: infectious diseases and legality, if not morality of mitigating actions.

The IHR’s aim to provide maximum protection from the international spread of infectious diseases while causing minimal harm to global travel and commerce. It originates from the 1892 International Sanitary Convention that sought to control the spread of cholera in the Suez Canal, providing for coercive ship inspections and quarantines.

It may well be said that the Achilles-like duality of IHR, its true power and weakness, lies not in legal theory but sheer human behaviour. Infectious diseases are frightening. They compound the unknown and bring out the worst elements of our self-preservation instinct. Prior to the 2005 revision, states like India and Peru sat on critical information about disease outbreaks to avoid the punishing reactions of other states. Given the treatment of Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, one wonders what exactly has changed in the real world.

Read the rest of this entry »