Non Judicial Grievance Mechanisms In Land Related Disputes .
ISSN 2413‐807XNon‐judicialgrievancemechanisms inland‐relateddisputes inSierra LeoneAnalytical Assessmentwithin the framework of theVoluntary Guidelines on theResponsible Governance ofTenure of Land, Fisheries andForests in the Context ofNational Food SecurityFAO LEGAL PAPERS No. 99
Non‐judicialgrievancemechanisms inland‐relateddisputes inSierra LeoneAnalytical Assessmentwithin the framework of theVoluntary Guidelines on theResponsible Governance ofTenure of Land, Fisheries andForests in the Context ofNational Food SecuritySonkita ContehNamati Sierra LeoneSisay Alemahu YeshanewLegal Specialist, FAOFOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONSRome, 2016
The designations employed and the presentation of material in thisinformation product do not imply the expression of any opinionwhatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of anycountry, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning thedelimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specificcompanies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these havebeen patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed orrecommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature thatare not mentioned.The views expressed in this information product are those of theauthor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.ISBN 978‐92‐5‐109328‐3 FAO, 2016FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material inthis information product. Except where otherwise indicated, materialmay be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research andteaching purposes, or for use in non‐commercial products or services,provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source andcopyright holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of users’ views,products or services is not implied in any way.All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale andother commercial use rights should be made via www.fao.org/contact‐us/licence‐request or addressed to copyright@fao.org.FAO information products are available on the FAO website(www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through publications‐sales@fao.org.
TABLE OF CONTENTSFOREWORD . VIACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS . VIIEXECUTIVE SUMMARY . VIII1.INTRODUCTION . 11.1 Background to the Study . 11.2 Analytical framework and methodology . 32.LAND TENURE AND LAND ADMINISTRATION SYSTEMS IN SIERRA LEONE . 52.1 Land tenure systems . 52.2 Land administration institutions and challenges . 92.2.1 Land administration institutions . 92.2.2 Land administration challenges. 113.NON‐JUDICIAL GRIEVANCE MECHANISMS OPERATING IN SIERRA LEONE:MANDATES, PROCEDURES AND REMEDIES . 133.1 Institutions resolving disputes by non‐judicial means. 133.1.1 State/public institutions or authorities . 133.1.2 Customary mechanisms . 223.1.3 Business enterprises/private corporations . 253.1.4 Civil society and non‐governmental organizations . 273.2 Perception of disputants about processes and outcomes of non‐judicial GRMs . 283.2.1 Customary mechanisms . 283.2.2 State/public or NGO grievance mechanisms . 294.KEY FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 314.1 Existing grievance mechanisms . 314.2 Procedures and outcomes . 334.3 The way forward . 33ANNEX 1: SURVEY ON NON‐JUDICIAL GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISMSFOR LAND DISPUTES AND THE PERCEPTIONS OF DISPUTANTS . 37ANNEX 2: NON‐JUDICIAL GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISMS ON LAND: CASE STUDIES . 40BIBLIOGRAPHY. 45FAO LEGAL PAPERS 2016v
FOREWORDThe Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries andForests in the Context of National Food Security (VGGT) is an international instrument on thegovernance of tenure, which places secure access to land, fisheries and forests firmly in thecontext of food security. Since its endorsement by the Committee on World Food Securityon 11 May 2012, the VGGT has received widespread buy‐in and has been implemented inmany countries. With the technical support of the Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO) and the financial support of Germany, Sierra Leone launched theprocess of implementing the VGGT on 1 February 2014 through a multi‐sectoral interventionfocusing on land, fisheries and forestry and on cross‐cutting issues such as gender, humanrights and access to justice. A multi‐stakeholder platform on the VGGT, composed of anInter‐ministerial Task Force, a Steering Committee and a Technical Working Group, wasestablished to ensure ownership, broad participation and political support.One of the main components of the above‐mentioned project, under the “right to food”theme, aimed at mapping and evaluating existing grievance redress mechanisms (GRMs)based on the principles of accessibility, transparency and accountability recommended inthe VGGT, with a view to contribute to the strategy of the Government of Sierra Leone tosystematize, organize and improve dispute resolution mechanisms. It feeds into the overallaim of improving the governance of tenure to improve food security in the country,especially in the context of large‐scale agricultural investments.In Sierra Leone, the structure of dispute resolution mechanisms follows the dualistic tenuresystem in which customary and statutory structures operate side by side. The present studyis conducted with a view to better understand the types and effectiveness of the non‐judicialGRMs that exist in Sierra Leone based on internationally accepted standards that areenshrined in the VGGT. To capture sectoral nuances as much as possible, the study focuseson land‐related disputes, but many of its findings could apply to the governance of tenure inrelation to other natural resources. Non‐judicial institutions play an important role in theresolution of land disputes but their functioning has not been systematically analysed inrelevant publications. FAO’s three legal assessment papers on land, fisheries and forestry inSierra Leone, for instance, focused mainly on formal policy and justice mechanisms.Based on field surveys that were conducted in two rounds in 2014 and 2015, the studyassesses the jurisdictional, procedural and remedial aspects of land‐related GRMs basedon the standards of accessibility, non‐discrimination, gender equality, fairness, equity,transparency, timeliness and effectiveness in the resolution of tenure disputes. It proposessome options for the rationalization and coordination of the GRMs that are now at work.While the assessment has already been used as a basis for substantive contributions to thedevelopment of the Land Policy of Sierra Leone that was adopted in the end of 2015 and thedraft mediation bill, its findings and recommendations are expected to inform other ongoingand envisaged legal reforms.FAO LEGAL PAPERS 2016vi
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONSCLOCustomary Law OfficersCSOCivil Society OrganizationDCDistrict CouncilDODistrict OfficerEPAEnvironment Protection AgencyFAOFood and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsFSUFamily support unitsGDPGross domestic productGRMGrievance Redress MechanismKAPKnowledge and PerceptionsNGONon‐governmental organizationNLPNational Land PolicyNMANational Minerals AgencyONSOffice of National SecurityVGGTVoluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land,Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food SecurityFAO LEGAL PAPERS 2016vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYIn November 2015, the Government of Sierra Leone adopted a comprehensive National LandPolicy (NLP) which aims to establish a just land tenure system which will ensure equitableaccess to land for all citizens and stimulate investment for the nation’s development. Thismarked a milestone in efforts to reform the country’s dual land tenure system which has fordecades been plagued by “ a high degree of out‐datedness, technical complexity, unclearmanagerial hierarchy, operational inefficiency, inadequate resources and corruption” amongother challenges. Wholesale changes, have now been proposed in the policy, to the publicstructures and processes through which rights in land are created, defined, and recorded,land transactions are conducted, and land disputes are processed. The policy itselfincorporates important provisions from the VGGT, a collection of rights‐aligned principlesand international best practices on the governance of land and natural resources that hasbeen endorsed and is being implemented by Sierra Leone.Dispute resolution or GRMs are important components of any organized system ofgovernance of natural resources. Effective GRMs offer trusted means of clarifying claims,protecting rights and providing remedies. Like its tenure system, Sierra Leone has asomewhat bifurcated land dispute resolution system. Under customary tenure, chiefs playan important traditional dispute resolution role. Tenure disputes under the formal systemare generally resolved by the High Court which has unlimited original jurisdiction. Within andsometimes straddling both systems are public, private and other community‐basedmechanisms involved in land dispute resolution.Land disputes are among the most common types of civil disputes in Sierra Leone and thenature of such disputes varies depending on the tenure system. For land held undercustomary tenure, disputes arise as a result of lack of consent over land transfer, arbitraryexercise of power by a traditional authority over land, intra‐family disputes over rights toland and boundary disputes. Causes of land disputes within the formal tenure include use offraudulent documents, multiple rights over land, trespass and erroneous surveys. In recentyears, the pursuit by the government of a policy of large‐scale investment in land andnatural resources has added another dimension to land‐related disputes. Some big privateinvestments have struggled to cohabit with their host communities, sometimes resulting intension and conflicts. Disputes have arisen mainly over land acquisition processes, use ofcommon resources and impact of company operations on livelihoods and the environment.Disputes have also arisen between companies over concessions.Given the prevalence of land‐related disputes, the poor state of access to formal justicemechanisms for citizens and the reliance of a large segment of the population on customaryor informal mechanisms, an inquiry into the existence and viability of non‐judicial GRMs thatapply to such disputes becomes crucial. A clear understanding of how such mechanismswork and their strengths and weaknesses would be a useful lamppost for the effectiveimplementation of the land policy and pertinent laws. The VGGT recognizes the importanceof complementing judicial systems with state/public, customary and corporate mechanismsthat may be used to prevent and resolve tenure disputes. Its best practice standards relatingto jurisdictional competence, fair hearing and effective remedies have been applied to theevaluation of these non‐judicial institutions in Sierra Leone. The study used a combination ofdesk research, surveys and targeted interviews across seven districts in the north, east andsouthern provinces to gather data on the mandate and functioning of various non‐judicialGRMs and people’s perceptions about the dispute resolution processes and outcomes.FAO LEGAL PAPERS 2016viii
Over the years, public officials such as provincial secretaries, district officers (DO), customarylaw officers (CLO) and council chairpersons, have presided over land disputes between andwithin communities and families, as well as between communities and corporations.Regulators such as the National Minerals Agency (NMA) and the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) have also been involved in the resolution of land‐related disputes. Non‐governmental organizations (NGO), religious leaders, family heads and secret societies havesimilarly performed dispute‐resolution functions in relation to land. Some companiesundertaking large‐scale land investments have also set up internal complaints mechanismsto deal with operational‐level grievances arising from their large‐scale acquisition and use ofland.When assessed in light of the VGGT principles and best practices, GRMs within customarytenure showed some vulnerabilities but remain the most accessed non‐judicial disputeresolution mechanism. Chiefs, the major intra‐community dispute resolvers, often arrogateto themselves powers that have been vested in local courts. They are allowed by law toarbitrate and mediate land and other disputes but many exercise adjudicatory powers. Theresolution process is relatively straight‐forward but the process is undocumented.Disputants are expected to pay a “hand shake” fee and to cover the costs of all meetings andfield visits – costs that sometimes go beyond the means of a complainant. Traditionalprocesses sometimes ignore provisions of statutes that provide better protection forwomen’s property rights, choosing instead to enforce customs which may underminewomen’s access to land. Outcomes are often specific and include compensation, restitution,boundary re‐demarcation and declaration of title. However, the absence of written recordsundermines long‐term resolution.A number of public institutions undertake land dispute resolution mainly in executing otherprimary mandate. Some of them have specific regulatory responsibility in related areas suchas mineral exploitation and environmental protection. Generally, these institutions do nothave clearly defined processes for receiving and resolving disputes and have not consistentlydocumented processes and outcomes. They undertake mediation and generally adhere tofair hearing principles. They provide specific remedies such as compensation and restitutionbut compliance often depends on the will of the parties. For institutions with regulatorymandate such as the EPA and the NMA, the line between mediation and regulation becomesblurred for disputes within their areas of responsibility. Fines may be levied or licenses maybe suspended for non‐compliance with dispute resolution outcomes. There is evidence oflimited collaboration between some public institutions and customary mechanisms in theresolution of disputes. However public institutions largely operate in silos, thus encouragingforum shopping.Businesses undertaking large‐scale agriculture or mining activities inevitably impact tenurerights in the course of their operations. The VGGT require them to have effectiveoperational‐level GRMs to provide remedies. Recent mining regulations, which are in linewith the VGGT provisions, set out how companies in the sector should go about that. It is notclear how many have complied. Even though there is no similar regulation for agriculturecompanies yet, the survey showed that some of them have already set up some form ofgrievance redress system at the operational level. This includes multiple intake points, suchas complaint boxes, grievance officers or community meetings. Some of these intakemechanisms like the complaint boxes have been criticized as ineffective as they often remainunutilized and un‐serviced for long periods. It is also not clear how well informedcommunities are about these intake mechanisms. These companies keep record ofFAO LEGAL PAPERS 2016ix
grievances and communicate outcomes in writing. Dissatisfied complainants may resort toother dispute resolution mechanisms.Civil society organizations (CSOs) have been involved in resolving land disputes usingmediation and other conciliation processes, as well as channelling grievances through thedifferent mechanisms. Using a frontline force of community‐based paralegals, some of themhelp disputants engage public, traditional and corporate GRMs. The effectiveness oforganizations varies considerably and compliance with outcomes depends on the goodwill ofthe parties.Despite their shortcomings, non‐judicial GRMs have been an important means of landdispute resolution in Sierra Leone. In addition to being comparatively cheap, quick andaccessible to the wider public, they provide justice in situ often employing language andform that the parties identify with and understand. Nevertheless, post war reform effortswithin the justice sector have paid scant attention to non‐judicial dispute resolutionmechanisms. If these mechanisms are organized in clear, accessible, effective and rights‐compatible ways, they can advance the rule of law and help maintain social cohesion.With the ever increasing competition for land and the impact of climate change, it is hard toimagine a responsible governance regime without a more rationalized or dedicatedmechanism for non‐discriminatory, gender‐sensitive, fair, equitable, effective, accessible,affordable, timely and transparent resolution of tenure disputes. In broad strokes, a numberof options are possible. First, existing institutions could be strengthened by providing themwith clear complaints mandate and building their capacity on rights‐based land disputeresolution. Alternatively, a single non‐judicial institution that deals with all types of land‐related disputes with branches all over the country could be established. Another optionmight be to establish a mechanism to deal with certain administrative or high‐level landdisputes. Yet another option might be to establish an institution that serves as a secretariatcoordinating the dispute resolution work of all existing non‐judicial GRMs. These options arenot ready‐made and exclusive recommendations, but proposals to be explored in thecontext of policy and law reform and implementation processes.FAO LEGAL PAPERS 2016x
Non‐judicial grievance mechanisms in land‐related disputes in Sierra Leone: Analytical Assessment1. INTRODUCTION1.1 Background to the StudyThe Republic of Sierra Leone is administratively divided into four regions, which are furthersubdivided into 14 districts and 149 chiefdoms. Chiefdoms are administrative units that aregoverned by Paramount Chiefs and
Disputes have arisen mainly over land acquisition processes, use of common resources and impact of company operations on livelihoods and the environment. Disputes have also arisen between companies over concessions. Given the prevalence of land‐related disputes, the poor state of access to formal justice
1 Management Human Resource Management Grievance Handling Items Description of Module Subject Name Management Paper Name Human Resource Management Module Title Grievance Handling Module Id Module No.29 Pre- Requisites Knowledge of Industrial relations Objectives To have a knowledge of Grievance handling Keywords Grievance, Grievance Handling, Grievance committee, Grievance redressal machinery.
ARTICLE 16 - MEDICAL AND INSURANCE BENEFITS 16.1 Health Insurance. 16.2 Health Tests. 16.3 Life Insurance. 16.5 Other Insurance. 16.6 Retirement Plan. ARTICLE 17 - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 17.1 Grievance Defined. 17.2 Filing a Grievance. 17.3 Time Limits. 17.4 Grievance Procedure. 17.5 Union Grievance. 17.6 Termination.
care service plans. If you have a grievance against Sutter Health Plus, you should first telephone Sutter Health Plus at 1-855-315-5800 (TTY 1-855-830-3500) and use the Sutter Health Plus grievance process before contacting the department. Utilizing this grievance procedure does not prohibit any potential legal rights or remedies that may be
8 MAE 342 –Dynamics of Machines 15 Torfason’s Classification of Mechanisms Snap-Action Mechanisms Linear Actuators Fine Adjustments Clamping Mechanisms Locational Devices Ratchets and Escapements Indexing Mechanisms Swinging or Rocking Mechanisms Reciprocating Mechanisms Reversing Mec
Grievance Procedure. It does not pertain to grievances of bargaining unit employees which are covered by the negotiated grievance procedure in a collective bargaining agreement or to Commissioned Corps Officers. The Departmental grievance procedures have been established
signed agreement, the step two-decision maker will resume jurisdiction and, within the time remaining, render a decision as though mediation had never occurred. IV. Grievance Guidelines A. Records 1. Grievance records will be maintained separate and apart from employee
1 Management Human Resource Management Grievance Handling Items Description of Module Subject Name Management Paper Name Human Resource Management Module Title Grievance Handling Module Id Module No.29 Pre- Requisites Knowledge of Industrial relations Objectives To have a knowle
(Should negotiations continue beyond one year salary shall be prorated. The union dues will be paid during active negotiations in addition to their salaries) Grievance Chair Union dues will be paid as a retainer Each incident requiring action will be 50. Each grievance 100 for first level. Each grievance 200 for level 2 and beyond.
