This blog features a conversation between Solomon Moses Sogbandi and Jane Rooney. Solomon discusses the impact of Amnesty International Sierra Leone’s report on MEYA mining human rights abuses; the reform of the Mines and Minerals Act 2009; the Koidu Limited Mining Company in the Kono District; and what is, if any, the UK’s role in combating human rights abuses in mining in Sierra Leone.
Jane: Amnesty international in Sierra Leone conducted research into Meya Mining’s diamond mining activities in the Kono District, East Sierra Leone. Can you tell us more about this research?
Solomon: Amnesty International delegates conducted several studies between 2018 and 2021 which included interviews with 128 people in 9 communities affected by the mining operations. Meetings were also held with national and local authorities, as well as the director of the mine. Amnesty’s investigations revealed several human rights issues. High nitrate levels were found in drinking water in boreholes built by Meya in the Koaquima community. Blast shelters in the Simbakoro community, which were meant to provide safety to local communities during blasting for diamonds, were inadequate. They could only hold 300 people, and there were 2000 people in the community. There was a lack of genuine and meaningful consultations with all affected communities. Testimonies revealed that residents were not engaged in the process of genuine consultation before mining began.
Jane: Did the report produced by Amnesty International change the situation on the ground?
Solomon: After the Amnesty report, Meya had difficulty getting funding from the donors because the donors saw the Amnesty report. The donors said that unless Meya addressed those concerns, they were not going to donate funds to Meya. In March 2022, Meya Mining received a request from the Senior Permanent Secretary at the Sierra Leone Ministry of Mines and Mineral Resources to address concerns raised by Amnesty International. But withdrawal of funding from donors was what made Meya respond. Meya hired consultants to respond to Amnesty’s report. Amnesty was never contacted by the consultants in the production of their response. This is a methodological issue. But Meya mining has improved its practices as a result of the Amnesty report because of concerns raised by donors. Meya has reduced the percentage of nitrate in water so that it is not as dangerous and addressed issues with blasting houses.
Jane: What reforms have been made to the Mines and Minerals Act 2009 that we see in the Mines and Minerals Development Act 2022?
Solomon: There are radical reforms in the Mines and Minerals Act 2009. Mining communities have to be a critical component of the mining project. The 2022 act requires a community development agreement (Part XVIII 2022 Act, s 141). The community development agreement shall ‘contribute to sustainable development of affected communities’ (s 141(2) 2022 Act). A community development agreement shall ‘specify the consultative and monitoring frameworks between the [mining company] and the primary host community, and the means by which the community may participate in the planning, implementation, management and monitoring’ of the agreement (s 141(5)(a) 2022 Act). Before the reforms, community leadership, government and mining companies developed the agreement, and the community was excluded from the agreement. Community leadership is a middleman between the community and the mining leadership. The community would not have access to mining leadership to voice their concerns. This led to a lot of tension, which could result in chaos, conflict, and even death. The requirement of community agreement helps.
The radical reforms require a community development fund (s 143 2022 Act). Before the act, very little funds were given to landowning families. Now, a much larger percentage of the funds go to land owning families. The mining company must deposit funds ‘not less than’ one percent of its annual gross revenue into the community development fund. The mining revenue is managed under the fund. The agreement specifies how allocated funds will be spent. This is to ensure that funds are spent on roads, water supply, scholarships for school education etc. Before now, the community leadership took a huge percentage of the money. There is a real difference in communities as a result of the reform. This is good news.
Further, the new EITI strategy and reporting obligations (Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative) have added corruption and income and expenditure of mining companies. That is, companies should declare total income and expenditure and there is now a mandatory provision in the mining agreement for companies to restore the environment after end of operations
Jane: Human rights abuses carried out by the Koidu Limited Mining Company in the Kono District have attracted much media attention in Sierra Leone and an investigation is being undertaken by the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone in collaboration with the Kono District Human Rights Committee. Can you tell us more about what is happening there?
Solomon: The workers have gone on strike because of the poor conditions in which they work. Drinking water is not permitted onsite. If you are in a mining area and you drop an item, you are not allowed to pick it up until it is checked by security. You cannot go to the toilet. You have to leave the site to go to the toilet. There is a vast disparity in terms of payments received by community workers compared to other workers in the company, ‘expats’ from other countries. It is part of the reforms of the 2009 Act, that if there is a job that the locals can do, they should not bring in expats for that. There should be employment opportunities for local people. Part XXIV of the 2022 Act, s 166, provides: ‘[mining companies] shall for the maximum extent possible employ Sierra Leone citizens… [a]ll unskilled labour required to implement licence activities shall be given to Sierra Leone citizens’.
The First Lady of Sierra Leone negotiated with the leadership of the company. After initial engagements, the leadership agreed but later reneged on the agreed terms with the First Lady and Mines Workers executive. The situation is very serious and tense. The Minister of Mines and Minister of Employment are negotiating with company leadership to improve the situation for workers and to try to prevent a clash. But the situation is very tense.
Jane: Is there anything that can be done by the UK or in the UK to help alleviate human rights abuses in the mining sector in Sierra Leone? Should we leave it to other actors to sort out?
Solomon: There is much that can be done in the UK. NGOs and academics should lobby the UK government to communicate with donors and educate donors on human rights issues in the mining sectors they are funding. Donors should not fund mining activities where human rights abuses occur.
Solomon Moses Sogbandi is a seasoned human rights defender who has been practising human rights advocacy and activism in Amnesty International Sierra Leone. Firstly, he was the head of campaigns from 2009 to 2012 and was recruited as the Director of the organisation. He also worked with the Catholic Relief Services (CRS) for many years, where he graduated to the level of head of the monitoring and evaluation unit. He graduated with a BA with division one and an MSc in development studies from universities in Sierra Leone. Solomon is a member of the Multi-Stakeholder Group (MSG) of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) in Sierra Leone, representing civil society organisations. Solomon participated in Workshop 1 in January 2023.