The phrase "orders from above" often functions as a mechanism to shift moral responsibility from an individual actor to an undefined authority. This concept is typically invoked alongside the defense "I was only following orders," which seeks to absolve the individual of direct culpability for their actions. Indeed, the phrase "orders from above" and the refrain "I was only following orders" represent a fundamental transfer of moral responsibility from the actor to an unseen authority.
This particular phrasing is considered dangerous due to its deliberate vagueness. The phrase "orders from above" is dangerous precisely because it is often deliberately vague, serving to foster impunity. The lack of specificity regarding the source of such directives can serve to shield those truly responsible, thereby fostering a culture of impunity.
The Agentic State Explained
Psychologist Stanley Milgram identified the surrender of moral agency as the agentic state. Milgram, a psychologist, gave this surrender of moral agency a specific name: the agentic state. In his studies, Milgram observed that individuals could enter a state where they perceived themselves as instruments of another person's will, thereby transferring responsibility upwards. In Milgram's studies, people could enter a state where they saw themselves as instruments of another person's will, effectively relocating responsibility upward from themselves. This theory by Milgram reveals a moral mechanism through which people commit or enable harm, yet simultaneously view themselves as loyal, disciplined, or professionally obedient. Milgram's theory reveals a moral mechanism where people commit or enable harm while seeing themselves as loyal, disciplined, or professionally obedient, thus rationalizing their actions.
The primary danger associated with the agentic state is not necessarily the absence of conscience, but rather its trained suspension when confronted with authority. The danger is not always the absence of conscience, but its trained suspension in the presence of authority, which can lead to profound ethical compromises. While the agentic state may offer an explanation for how individuals surrender responsibility, it does not provide an excuse for such surrender. Oumar Farouk Sesay elaborated on this distinction, stating, "The agentic state may explain how people surrender responsibility, but it does not excuse that surrender. Understanding obedience is not the same as forgiving unlawful obedience. Explanation is not absolution. A person may feel like an instrument, but the law and conscience still recognize a human being capable of judgment." This critical distinction shows that while psychological factors can influence behavior, they do not negate individual accountability or the moral imperative to uphold justice. The capacity for judgment, even under duress, remains a cornerstone of legal and ethical frameworks.
Injustice in Practice
In Sierra Leone, the phrase "orders from above" has emerged as a widespread language of evasion. This linguistic pattern serves to shield not only individuals who issue unlawful directives and those who execute them but also entire institutions from accountability. In Sierra Leone, the phrase "orders from above" has become a language of evasion, shielding those who issue unlawful orders, those who carry them out, and the institutions they represent. The widespread use of this phrase contributes to an environment where responsibility for actions can be deflected, obscuring the true origins of contentious decisions and perpetuating a cycle of unaccountability. This deflection of responsibility creates a systemic vulnerability that undermines the rule of law and public trust.
The consequence of this evasion is often a tangible injustice experienced on the streets. Public demonstrations, intended as expressions of civic engagement, can rapidly devolve into scenes marked by panic, punitive measures, and, in severe cases, bloodshed. This leads to injustice on the streets, where demonstrations can turn into scenes of panic, punishment, and bloodshed, demonstrating the real-world impact of such evasive language. Such outcomes show the real-world impact of a system where accountability is diffused and individuals or entities are shielded by the ambiguity of "orders from above." The lack of clear responsibility emboldens actions that would otherwise be subject to scrutiny and legal consequence, thereby eroding the fundamental rights of citizens to peaceful assembly and expression.
Within the nation's courtrooms, the systemic issue manifests in various forms. Legal files have been known to move or disappear entirely, hindering due process. Additionally, charges are sometimes pursued for reasons of political convenience rather than adherence to legal principles. Decisions regarding bail are also reportedly made without a consistent legal foundation, further indicating a deviation from established judicial norms. In courtrooms, this sickness can manifest as files moving or disappearing, charges pursued for political convenience, or bail granted or denied without legal principle, further illustrating how the concept of "orders from above" permeates the justice system. These practices suggest a compromised legal system where procedural integrity is undermined, and the pursuit of justice is subordinated to external pressures or political expediency. The erosion of judicial independence, facilitated by the ambiguity of "orders from above," directly impacts the fairness and impartiality of legal proceedings, leaving citizens vulnerable to arbitrary decisions.
A stark reminder of state power operating without clear moral restraint is the gallows at Pademba Road Prison. This structure remains a grim symbol, reflecting a history where the exercise of authority has sometimes been detached from ethical considerations. The gallows at Pademba Road Prison remain a grim symbol of state power detached from moral restraint, serving as a physical testament to past injustices. The presence of such a symbol reinforces concerns about the mechanisms of justice and accountability within the country, noting the urgent need for reforms that prioritize human dignity and the rule of law above all else. This historical artifact serves as a constant reminder of the potential for abuse when power is unconstrained by ethical boundaries and transparent accountability.
Sierra Leone's historical trajectory has provided clear lessons regarding the ramifications of replacing constitutional governance with arbitrary commands. The nation has experienced firsthand what occurs when public service, intended for the common good, is transformed into personal service to powerful individuals or "strongmen." Sierra Leone's history has taught lessons about what happens when the Constitution is replaced by commands and public service becomes personal service to strongmen, demonstrating the profound dangers of such a shift. This historical experience shows the dangers inherent in systems where authority is concentrated and accountability is diluted by the defense of "orders from above." The collective memory of these periods emphasizes the critical importance of upholding constitutional principles and ensuring that all actions by public officials are transparent, justifiable, and in service of the populace, not individual agendas.
Institutional Culture and Pressure
Many civil servants, police officers, soldiers, prison staff, and court employees operate under significant pressure, facing the potential for dismissal, demotion, transfer, humiliation, or retaliation. This environment contributes to a deeper institutional failure, characterized by a culture that prioritizes obedience over moral integrity. The deeper failure is an institutional culture that rewards obedience over moral integrity, creating a widespread atmosphere where ethical considerations are secondary. While individuals may experience such pressures, the existence of pressure does not serve as absolution for their actions, nor does a uniform erase conscience, or a title suspend the Constitution. Pressure is not absolution; a uniform does not erase conscience, and a title does not suspend the Constitution, reinforcing the idea that individual responsibility persists regardless of external circumstances or official position. This culture, often reinforced by the ambiguous invocation of "orders from above," stifles dissent and discourages ethical conduct, leading to a systemic breakdown of accountability.
The fundamental task involves dismantling the prevailing culture that allows unlawful orders to be carried out. This necessitates demanding accountability from both those who issue such directives and those who enable their execution. The task is to dismantle the culture that enables unlawful orders to take effect, demanding accountability from both the issuer and the enabler, thereby addressing the problem at its roots. Institutions are called upon to cease rewarding blind loyalty and instead begin protecting acts of lawful courage. Institutions must stop rewarding blind loyalty and begin protecting lawful courage, fostering an environment where ethical behavior is not only permitted but actively encouraged and safeguarded. This shift requires a re-evaluation of performance metrics, disciplinary procedures, and internal communication channels to ensure that integrity is prioritized over unquestioning compliance.
Upholding the Law and Republic
Hierarchy itself is not the problem, but danger emerges when it is treated as sacred, overriding the Constitution, conscience, due process, and the dignity of citizens. Hierarchy is not the enemy, but danger begins when it is treated as sacred, outranking the Constitution, conscience, due process, and the dignity of citizens, thereby undermining the very foundations of a just society. The first duty of every public officer is to the law, the republic, and the people, rather than the individual holding office. Nations can decay not solely through coups and wars, but also through daily acts of cowardice disguised as procedure. Nations decay not only through coups and wars, but also through daily acts of cowardice disguised as procedure, which slowly erode democratic institutions and public trust. The current generation faces a duty to refuse such surrender, insisting that no order is higher than the Constitution, no office greater than the republic, and no command more sacred than human dignity. The duty of the current generation is to refuse that surrender and insist that no order is higher than the Constitution, no office greater than the republic, and no command more sacred than human dignity, thereby upholding the core tenets of a free society. The rule of law requires written orders, transparent command structures, independent investigations, consequences for unlawful directives, and protection for officers who refuse to violate the law. A nation achieves justice when its people collectively refuse to allow power to stand above the law. A nation becomes just when its people refuse to let power stand above the law, asserting the supremacy of legal and ethical principles over arbitrary authority. The law must not kneel to a uniform, a title, a party, a commander, a minister, a president, or any unnamed authority concealed by "orders from above." This unwavering commitment to justice and accountability is the bedrock upon which a truly democratic and equitable society is built.
