By Albert David
Sierra Leone’s democratic project stands at a decisive crossroads. The country’s constitutional order, carefully constructed to safeguard liberty, justice, and the rule of law, cannot endure if the institutions entrusted with public authority drift into partisanship, selective enforcement, or dereliction of duty. The moment demands not polite appeals, but a principled insistence on accountability, institutional neutrality, and the uncompromising enforcement of constitutional obligations.
For Sierra Leone to mature into a resilient democracy, both present and future governments must confront a long‑standing structural weakness, and that is the absence of a credible, independent mechanism capable of investigating and prosecuting senior public officials whose actions or omissions amount to abuses of office or violations of fundamental rights. This is not a matter of political preference, it is a democratic necessity.
A statutorily mandated, fully independent Commission of Inquiry, vested with investigative and prosecutorial authority, has become indispensable. Such a body must be empowered to examine conduct within all public institutions, including the judiciary and the Sierra Leone Police, where breaches of constitutional, statutory, or fiduciary duties occur. This is not about targeting institutions, it is about protecting them. A democracy cannot function when those entrusted with public power operate without meaningful oversight. Nor can it thrive when accountability is treated as optional, negotiable, or dependent on political convenience. A Commission of Inquiry would serve as a structural guarantee that no official, regardless of rank, affiliation, or influence, can evade responsibility for misconduct that harms the public interest.
The Sierra Leone judiciary is constitutionally obligated to administer justice impartially, independently, and without fear or favour. Its legitimacy rests not on tradition or symbolism, but on its fidelity to the Constitution and its ability to uphold the rights of all citizens. Similarly, the Sierra Leone Police carry a legal mandate to enforce the law, protect public safety, and defend fundamental rights. Their authority is not a political instrument, it is a public trust.When officials within these institutions knowingly permit, facilitate, or acquiesce in partisan manipulation, selective enforcement, or politically motivated abuses, they commit more than administrative misconduct, they undermine the very foundations of democratic governance. Such behaviour constitutes an abuse of office and, where it results in harm, criminal complicity.
In any constitutional democracy, public officials cannot plead ignorance of their obligations. The law is explicit: those who authorise, enable, or willfully fail to prevent human rights violations, including unlawful killings, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detention, or acts causing mass harm, must face criminal prosecution. Administrative sanctions are insufficient. Political consequences are inadequate. Only criminal accountability reflects the gravity of such offences. A democracy that fails to punish abuses of power invites their repetition. A state that tolerates impunity erodes its own legitimacy.
While future governments must institutionalise these reforms, the responsibility does not begin tomorrow. It begins now. The present government holds the constitutional authority, and the ethical obligation, to ensure that public institutions operate exclusively in the public interest. This includes strengthening the separation of powers, guaranteeing the neutrality of state institutions, protecting citizens from abuses of authority, and ensuring that accountability mechanisms are functional, independent, and credible. Democratic integrity cannot be deferred. Ethical governance cannot be postponed. Transparency and accountability are not aspirational ideals, they are constitutional imperatives.
Sierra Leone’s democratic future depends on the courage to confront uncomfortable truths. It requires a political culture that values constitutionalism over convenience, public duty over personal loyalty, and institutional integrity over partisan advantage. The call for accountability is not a threat to governance, it is the foundation of legitimate governance. The demand for institutional neutrality is not an attack on the state, it is a defence of the state. The insistence on criminal liability for abuses of power is not radical, it is the essence of the rule of law. Sierra Leone deserves institutions that serve the people, not the powerful. It deserves a justice system that protects rights, not interests. It deserves a police force that safeguards safety, not political agendas. And it deserves a government, present and future, that upholds the Constitution with unwavering commitment.
Democracy survives only when accountability is real, when power is constrained by law, and when public institutions operate with integrity, neutrality, and respect for the people they serve
