The Office of the Ombudsman, once regarded as a cornerstone of administrative fairness and accountability, is now at the center of a growing public relations storm following its recent publication targeting the Milton Margai Technical University (MMTU). The flyer—allegedly issued under the authority of newly appointed Ombudsman Emmanuel Sahr Tondoneh Esq—accused MMTU of being the most non-compliant institution in responding to the Ombudsman’s directives. But what was meant to demonstrate institutional assertiveness has instead backfired, drawing sharp criticism from legal experts and academic stakeholders alike.
The controversy is the latest in a string of missteps that have plagued the Ombudsman’s Office, which has been struggling to recover from months of internal disputes between the former Ombudsman and his Executive Secretary. The fallout from that episode led to both officials being dismissed, paving the way for what many hoped would be a fresh start under new leadership. Yet, the current storm suggests that the office’s internal culture may still be far from stable.
According to MMTU’s administration, the allegations contained in the flyer are “baseless and unfair.” A senior university official described the move as “an unwarranted attack that undermines institutional collaboration.” The University maintains that it has always complied with the Ombudsman’s communications and has never ignored a directive or request for information. “Every letter we have received was handled through the proper administrative channel, and our responses were prompt,” said one MMTU representative.
What has particularly unsettled many observers is the Ombudsman’s alleged claim that his office has prosecutorial authority and reports directly to the President—an interpretation of the law that several legal scholars have dismissed as inaccurate. “The Ombudsman’s role is clearly defined by statute,” noted one constitutional lawyer. “He is mandated to investigate complaints of administrative injustice, not to act as a prosecutor or operate outside established reporting lines. Any suggestion to the contrary undermines the very purpose of the office.”
The Universities Act 2021 and the Ombudsman Act both establish clear boundaries for institutional interactions. By publicly naming and shaming a university in a flyer, critics argue, the Ombudsman’s Office has crossed an ethical line. “Such public condemnation without due process is deeply unprofessional,” said another legal analyst. “If indeed the flyer originated from his office, an apology to MMTU would be the appropriate and dignified course of action.”
Behind the scenes, officials within the Ombudsman’s Office are said to be divided over how the matter was handled. Some staff members reportedly expressed discomfort with the flyer’s tone and questioned whether it had received proper internal approval before publication. Others fear that the controversy could erode public confidence in an institution whose effectiveness depends heavily on perceived neutrality and credibility.
For students and staff at MMTU, the episode has sparked both anger and dismay. Many see it as a distraction from the university’s ongoing efforts to strengthen academic programs and improve administrative efficiency. “This kind of public labeling does not help anyone,” one lecturer lamented. “Institutions of accountability should model fairness, not fuel division.”
As public scrutiny intensifies, attention now turns to how the Ombudsman will respond. Whether through a formal apology, clarification, or internal review, the next steps will determine not only the fate of his office’s reputation but also its ability to function as an impartial arbiter of administrative justice. For an institution already battling to regain credibility, this episode serves as a stark reminder that authority without restraint can be just as damaging as inaction.
In a country where public trust in oversight bodies remains fragile, the Ombudsman’s handling of this controversy could either reinforce or further weaken the public’s faith in one of its key accountability institutions.
