By VOS Ariogbo Writer
Many Sierra Leoneans are questioning the out of Court settlement between SLRA and CTC Mining over the destruction of the Masiaka-Port Loko road by the company’s heavily loaded heavy – duty vehicles. Many are asking why the company was not fined in addition to repairing the damaged sections of the road, a thing they believe the Court would have ordered.
They believe that the company is not doing the country good, but are doing business with the government and any damage done to any infrastructure should be repaired or replaced, and the laws of the land be adhered to, which in this case demands a fine.
They also believe that the Court would also direct that the company use the available and appropriate means of transportation for their goods, which is the railway.
It could be recalled that after complaints from various quarters, including community people, about the destruction of the Masiaka-Port Loko road, a team of experts from SLRA, led by the Deputy Director General, Ing. Alfred Jalil Momodu, visited the failed section of the Masiaka – Port Loko Road on Friday 4th August,2023.
After inspection of the damaged sections of the road, they visited the CTC Mining Company that has been accused of responsibility for the said damage. The team engaged the management and then inspected the vehicles alleged to have been the cause of the destruction. They weighed the loaded trucks and discovered that the weight was far above the recommended weight of vehicle to use the road, this, concluding that the company was culpable.
This was admitted by the company, who then committed to fix the damaged sections of the road. A temporary arrangement was arrived at for the company to work with the Port Loko District engineer of the SLRA to do some maintenance on the road to be followed later by the complete reconstruction of the said road.
However, there are concerns raised by many citizens and road users over the legal aspect of the Violation of the Road Traffic Act 2007 by the company, which states:
- (1) The carriage of persons and goods mixed together, is hereby prohibited, as such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person or damage to property.
“Failure to comply with requirements for carriage of goods and persons, weights, etc of commercial vehicles, commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding Le250,000 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months or to both.”
Many concerned SierraLeoneans believe that the bauxite mined by the company is hazardous, as a result should be governed by transportation of hazardous goods, as stipulated in section 48 (1, 2,3) below:
- (1) A person shall not send or carry any hazardous goods by road except in accordance with this Part.
(2) The Authority may make regulations to specify which goods, articles or materials carried on a road are hazardous goods.
(3) Without limiting the generality of subsection (2), the Authority may make regulations for-
(a) the method of packing;
(b) the quantity of goods which may be carried on a road;
(c) the labelling on any package or container which contain goods;
(d) precautions to be taken with respect to the carriage of the goods; and
(e) the training and certification of drivers who transport hazardous goods.
- (1) Where any hazardous goods sent by or carried on any road are the subject matter of an offence under sections 48 and 49, a court may order that those goods and any package or container for the goods be seized and forfeited to the State.
(2) The court may exercise the powers conferred on it under subsection (1) notwithstanding that-
(a) the owner of the goods has not committed any offence in respect of the goods; or
(b) the owner of the goods is unknown.
(3) The court shall prior to the forfeiture of the dangerous goods under this section, duly notify the owner, consignee or person in temporary possession of the goods pending forfeiture.
- When a person contravenes or fails to comply with a road worthiness requirement relating to the construction or equipment of a motor vehicle or trailer or the conditions under which it may be used on a highway, the owner as well as any other person who has custody or control of the motor vehicle or trailer also commits the offence of which that person is guilty.
In their view, though the out of Court settlement arrived at by the SLRA technical team and the company, but rather they are not legally binding and the company can renege on its commitment and delay the work, or it can embark on substandard construction work of the road.
Many wonder what kind of road work that will be done by any engineer during heavy rains that will not end up destroyed, as in the case of Sani Abacha Street scenario.
Should that happen, will the company not claim that it had done its part? They are of the view that the company should not be using the road to transport its products, but should be using the railway service that is designed to carry such weight and is currently available for use by other mining companies in accordance with the agreement signed by the government and Kingho.
After the completion of the reconstruction of the road, will the SLRA allow the company to continue to use the road? Who will be monitoring compliance to the specific weight requirement of vehicles plying the road?
More on this in subsequent editions.
