The status of the rights of persons with disabilities in Sierra Leone: The need for a paradigm shift from political lip service
Posted: 6 June, 2018 Filed under: Joel Tejan Deen-Tarawally Esq. | Tags: begging, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, CRPD, democratic dispensation, Excellency Brigadier (Rtd) Julius Maada Bio, hearing and speech impaired, human rights, mentally impaired, National Social Protection Strategy, persons with disabilities, physically impaired, political lip-service, Poverty Reduction Interventions, Sierra Leone, social paradigm, visually impaired Leave a comment
Author: Joel Tejan Deen-Tarawally Esq.
Human Rights Lawyer, Sierra Leone Legal Aid Board
(An earlier version of this article was published in the Sierra Leonean newspaper Concord Times on 3 May 2018)
Whenever one speaks of persons with disabilities (such as the visually impaired, the hearing and speech impaired, the mentally and physically impaired) in Sierra Leone the next thing that comes to mind is an idea of destitute Sierra Leoneans begging in the streets of Freetown and other areas in the provinces. Such a national image regarding persons with disabilities is clearly not in line with Sierra Leone’s legal obligation under national and international laws.
Love in a Time of Ebola: Africa deserves a human rights determination
Posted: 6 November, 2014 Filed under: Humphrey Sipalla | Tags: Africa, African Charter, African Commission, African Court, AU Human Rights Strategy, Ebola, Guinea, human rights, International Health Regulations, Liberia, outbreak, rule of law, Sierra Leone, United Nations, West Africa, WHO, World Health Organisation 1 Comment
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.
AfricLaw 