By Rahman
Marampa Mines Limited (MML) is facing some of its strongest public criticism yet after the Chairman of Parliament’s Oversight Committee on Mines and Mineral Resources, Hon. Saa Emerson Lamina, accused the company of conduct that he said could amount to contempt of Parliament and undermine the rights of mining communities.
The accusations, made during an oversight engagement at Parliament on June 3, 2026, have reignited long-standing concerns about who truly controls Community Development Funds and whether mining companies are exercising undue influence over resources intended for local development.
At the centre of the controversy is the Community Development Fund, a legal requirement established under Section 143(4) of the Mines and Minerals Development Act. The provision compels mining companies to contribute at least one percent of their gross annual revenue to support development in communities directly affected by mining operations.
However, Hon. Lamina argued that the spirit and intent of the law are being compromised.
According to the lawmaker, Community Development Funds were never intended to become resources controlled by mining companies, consultants, contractors, or external actors. Instead, he said the funds belong to host communities and should be administered in a manner that reflects local priorities and aspirations.
In unusually strong remarks, Lamina questioned what he described as attempts to maintain corporate influence over funds that legally belong to the people living in mining areas.
“The law is clear. These funds are for the communities,” he reportedly emphasized, warning that any effort to interfere with that principle threatens both accountability and public trust.
The parliamentary committee chairman further alleged that Marampa Mines Limited had failed to fully comply with directives issued through Parliament’s oversight process, a matter he suggested raises serious concerns under parliamentary rules governing contempt.
While Parliament has yet to make a formal determination on the issue, Lamina’s comments signal growing frustration among lawmakers over what they perceive as resistance to oversight and transparency in the management of mining-related revenues.
The dispute extends far beyond a disagreement between Parliament and a mining company. It touches on one of the most sensitive questions in Sierra Leone’s extractive sector: why many communities rich in natural resources continue to struggle with poverty despite decades of mining activity.
Across mining districts, residents have repeatedly complained that promises of development have often failed to translate into visible improvements in their daily lives. Communities situated near major mining operations frequently cite inadequate healthcare facilities, poor roads, limited access to clean water, insufficient educational infrastructure, and high levels of youth unemployment.
For many observers, the controversy surrounding Marampa Mines Limited has become symbolic of a wider debate about resource justice and whether local populations are receiving a fair share of the wealth generated from their land.
Lamina argued that allowing companies or third parties to influence the use of Community Development Funds risks weakening community ownership and reducing transparency. He maintained that decisions on how such funds are spent should rest primarily with the people they were created to benefit.
He further revealed that discussions are underway on possible reforms that could place greater financial authority directly in the hands of community structures, reducing opportunities for external influence over development spending.
The lawmaker framed the issue as part of a broader effort to correct historical patterns in Sierra Leone’s mining industry, where vast quantities of minerals have been extracted while many host communities have remained underdeveloped.
He pointed to the country’s long history of mineral exploitation, arguing that lessons from past mining regions should serve as a warning against repeating mistakes that left communities with environmental challenges, limited infrastructure, and few lasting economic benefits.
Political analysts say the confrontation places increasing pressure on Marampa Mines Limited to address concerns surrounding transparency and community engagement. It also raises broader questions about how mining companies operating in Sierra Leone balance commercial interests with their obligations to local populations.
As parliamentary scrutiny intensifies, the debate is expected to extend beyond Marampa Mines and into the wider governance framework of Sierra Leone’s mining sector.
For many residents of mining communities, the stakes are high. The outcome could influence not only how Community Development Funds are managed but also whether local communities gain greater control over decisions affecting their future.
Hon. Lamina’s intervention delivered a clear warning: Community Development Funds are not corporate assets, nor are they resources to be controlled by outside interests. In his view, any attempt to dilute community ownership or disregard parliamentary oversight risks undermining both the law and the public confidence needed for sustainable and equitable development in Sierra Leone’s mining industry.
Editor’s Note: The allegations and criticisms contained in this report were made by Hon. Saa Emerson Lamina during a parliamentary engagement. Marampa Mines Limited’s response to the claims was not included in the proceedings referenced above.
