By Mahamood Fofana
Sierra Leone’s post-independence political trajectory has largely revolved around two dominant forces: the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) and the All People’s Congress (APC). When one governs, the other opposes. Yet history suggests a troubling pattern—policies introduced in moments of political expediency often outlive their architects, only to be deepened or perfected by successors, sometimes to the detriment of democratic growth.
From the era of Milton Margai to Albert Margai and later Siaka Stevens, state power has frequently been contested through legal and institutional maneuvering. Sir Milton Margai is often remembered for his commitment to pluralism and tolerance, laying the foundations for multiparty democracy. However, his successor, Albert Margai, reversed much of that trajectory. The 1964 Freetown Municipality (Amendment) Act and subsequent legislative actions were widely viewed as attempts to weaken the opposition’s foothold in the capital. In 1966, further controversial legal measures targeted parliamentary representatives, intensifying political tensions. These developments, critics argue, strengthened the APC’s eventual grip on Freetown and reshaped the political balance for decades.
Today, parallels are being drawn between that era and the leadership of Julius Maada Bio. Critics allege that contemporary governance trends reflect patterns of institutional consolidation. Concerns have been raised about the perceived capture or politicization of key democratic bodies, including the Electoral Commission, security institutions, and the Political Parties Regulation Commission. The debate surrounding the Cyber Security and Crime Act 2021 has further fueled arguments about shrinking civic space, with opponents likening it to the now-repealed Criminal Libel provisions of the 1965 Public Order Act.
The controversial 2023 general elections remain fresh in public discourse. The Tripartite Committee recommendations, intended to rebuild trust and enhance electoral credibility, have yet to fully reassure skeptics. For many observers, implementation delays and selective interpretations risk eroding confidence rather than restoring it.
Equally contentious is the proposed Sierra Leone Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2025. Critics argue that certain clauses may deviate from established democratic norms or undermine the spirit of consultation that accompanied the Tripartite dialogue. Financial levies imposed on political parties have also drawn scrutiny, with some political analysts warning that regulatory frameworks must not become instruments of exclusion or revenue generation at the expense of multiparty participation.
Historically, civil society groups, student movements, and opposition figures have played decisive roles in challenging executive overreach. Their activism has, at critical junctures, redirected the nation’s democratic course. The question now confronting Sierra Leone is whether similar vigilance is required to safeguard constitutional order.
More than six decades after independence in 1961, Sierra Leone continues to grapple with structural deficits—limited electricity supply, inadequate healthcare systems, fragile education infrastructure, and persistent governance challenges. While successive administrations have made incremental progress, the pace of transformation remains uneven.
Political philosophy offers a useful lens. Niccolo Machiavelli viewed the state as an instrument of order, emphasizing responsibility in leadership. Plato envisioned governance oriented toward the collective good rather than personal ambition. These classical reflections resonate in contemporary Sierra Leone, where citizens increasingly demand results over rhetoric.
The 1991 Constitution sets basic eligibility criteria for presidential candidates, requiring citizenship, party membership, age qualification, and literacy in English. Yet public debate continues over whether educational thresholds or ethical standards should be revisited to strengthen leadership quality. Ultimately, Sierra Leone does not lack manifestos or eloquent campaign promises. What it requires is principled governance, institutional independence, and accountability. If instability, democratic regression, or unrest were to arise, history suggests that responsibility would rest squarely with those entrusted with executive authority. The nation’s future depends not on political maneuvering, but on transparent leadership committed to national interest above partisan survival
