By Amin Kef Sesay
Christian Lawyers Centre also known as LEGAL LINK, in a Press Statement dated 24th June 2021 and signed by the Executive Director, Rashid Dumbuya Esq stated that it has taken judicial notice of the public notices issued by NACOVERC and the Sierra Leone Commercial Bank regarding mandatory vaccinations and the public outcry and reactions over that blatant violation of their right to freedom of movement and their right to make informed decisions regarding issues of their health.
LEGAL LINK continues that as an organization that defends the rights of religious communities and vulnerable groups in Sierra Leone, they make bold to say that the public notices issued by NACOVERC and the Sierra Leone Commercial Bank are not only wrong and misplaced but pose clear and present danger to the enjoyment of fundamental human rights within the State.
The organization underscored that while they acknowledge the good work that NACOVERC has done and is still doing regarding the fight against the Coronavirus, they at LEGAL LINK however take the greatest exception to NACOVERC’s forceful way of administering the COVID- 19 vaccine and called upon both NACOVERC and the Sierra Leone Commercial Bank to withdraw their public notices forthwith and further do an open apology to the public regarding same.
LEGAL LINK said it has raised 10 robust, cogent and convincing arguments as to why Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination is a wrong path to take by NaCOVERC in dealing with the coronavirus.
Listed below are LEGAL LINK’s arguments:
Sierra Leone is no longer under a state of Public Health Emergency where fundamental human rights maybe limited at will and without deference for due process.
It also pointed out that no precedent exists especially in the US or UK, (two progressive democratic nations that have been worst hit by the Coronavirus) supporting mandatory vaccinations or restriction of people’s movement’s into public and business places unless they show proof of being vaccinated. If these countries that have been worst hit by the Coronavirus still have the proclivity to respect the fundamental human rights of their citizens, how much more Sierra Leone that have not even witnessed up to 300 deaths since the Coronavirus outbreak?
LEGAL LINK said the World Health Organization and the US Centre for Disease Control have never supported mandatory vaccinations. It said their COVID -19 health guidelines have always referenced the need to secure the patient’s reasonable consent or that of his guardian if such consent cannot be practically obtained from the patient before vaccination is administered.
The organization furthered that the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to which Sierra Leone is a party puts responsibilities on Businesses to respect human rights.
It argues that the move therefore by Sierra Leone Commercial Bank to limit the movement of its staff and customers into the bank unless they show evidence that they had taken at least one dose of the vaccine amounts to a clear breach of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. That decision by the bank may not only harm businesses but further pose a clear and present danger to the socio- economic and security wellbeing of the State.
It further highlighted that Mandatory Vaccination by the State will create the likelihood for violations of the right to health of citizens.
LEGAL LINK said the State has an obligation under international human rights law to respect the rights of its citizens which simply means that the State must refrain from interfering and / or curtailing the enjoyment of the rights of its citizens within the State.
The organization continued that getting the consent of citizens before administering the COVID- 19 vaccine shows respect for their fundamental human rights saying on the contrary, issuing bogus threats to limit movements of people into public buildings and banks if they refused to take the vaccine shows outright disrespect for their right to make informed decisions regarding their health.
It continued that invoking the exception under Section 18 of the 1991 Constitution regarding the right to freedom of movement as a defense may be untenable outside of a State of Public Health Emergency and/ or Parliamentary approval.
While it is true that the Freedom of movement guaranteed under section 18 can be limited on grounds of public health, LEGAL LINK says, it is vital to hastily pinpoint that there’s an exception under Section 18 of the 1991 Constitution which reads thus:
…except in so far as that provision or as the case may be the thing done under the authority thereof is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.
The organization says it means that for one to rely on the exceptions under Section 18 as a defence, the thing done ought to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.
LEGAL LINK stated that according to their candid opinion as well as those from the majority of the public supported by international best practices, forcing COVID -19 vaccines on people against their wish or consent is an act that is unreasonable and unjustifiable in a democratic society hence, the exception under Section 18 cannot be relied upon in this given circumstance by NACOVERC as a defence.
The Public Health Ordinance of 1960, LEGAL LINK states only allows for restrictions of movement of persons into an “infected area”…The operative word in the Ordinance is “Infected area”. If public buildings and banks are not scientifically proven to be infected areas, then it will amount to a blatant violation of the fundamental human rights of citizens where such buildings and business places are restricted from people unless they show proof of being vaccinated.
It highlighted that the administration of health vaccines must always go with individual consent so that persons who take the vaccine may own up to the consequences should there be any side effects in the future on their health.
LEGAL LINK maintained that it is undisputable that the current COVID-19 vaccines are all on trials and have not been confirmed of being100 percent bullet proof against the virus….so why the fuss then? or why try to force it on people if it is clear that it is not a bullet proof against the coronavirus?
It is anathematic and uncharacteristic of Democratic nations, according to LEGAL LINK, to roll out mandatory vaccination policies and programs without due process, approval and consent of its citizens.
The organization furthered that it is authoritarian systems of Government that forces vaccines on their citizens within deference to their informed consent.
It said free, prior and informed consent is one of the cherished hallmarks of a democratic society and since Sierra Leone is a democratic nation and not an autocratic one, the Government must therefore respect its citizens rights to make informed decisions particularly on issues related to their health.
LEGAL LINK concludes that in sum and based on the above points raised, it is therefore calling on NaCOVERC and the Sierra Leone Commercial Bank to recall their public notices restricting access to public buildings and business places without proof of COVID-19 vaccination forthwith; and take steps to openly apologize to the public over that grave error of judgment and miscalculation.
It stated that if the above is not adhere to they will be left with no option but to institute legal actions both within and outside of the jurisdiction of Sierra Leone for violation of the fundamental human rights of citizens.
