By Forum staff writer
The Institute for Legal Research and Advocacy for Justice (ILRAJ) has called on Parliament to undertake major reforms to the proposed National Security and Central Intelligence Bill, 2025 before it is enacted into law, warning that several provisions could undermine democratic accountability and fundamental rights.
In a position paper submitted to the Speaker of Parliament, the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, the Chair of the Defence Committee, the Minority Leader, and the Chair of the Legislative Committee, ILRAJ outlined a range of concerns following a detailed review of the Bill. The organisation said its assessment was guided by the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and comparative global standards.
Central to ILRAJ’s concerns is what it describes as excessive executive control over the country’s security architecture. According to the paper, the Bill grants the President sweeping powers to appoint heads of key security institutions, including the proposed State Protection Service, without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. The group warned that such concentration of power could lead to the politicisation of national security bodies.
ILRAJ also raised alarm over provisions it says roll back safeguards introduced in earlier legislation. It pointed to clauses that remove Parliament’s approval role in the appointment of the Director General and Deputy Director General of the Central Intelligence and Security Agency. Another clause, it noted, sidelines the Public Service Commission in staffing decisions, placing hiring authority solely in the hands of the Director General.
Particular concern was expressed about the creation of the State Protection Service, a new agency that would operate under direct presidential authority. ILRAJ argued that the agency’s mandate is too broad and lacks clear limits. It highlighted provisions that could allow surveillance without judicial warrants, as well as a clause that may extend state funded security to individuals beyond clearly defined categories. The group also warned about powers to act on perceived threats without clear legal boundaries for arrest or detention.
The absence of independent oversight mechanisms was another major issue identified. ILRAJ noted that the Bill does not provide for an Inspector General of Intelligence or a dedicated parliamentary committee on intelligence and security. It also pointed to the lack of whistleblower protections, saying this could weaken accountability within security institutions.
Concerns were also raised about parliamentary oversight. ILRAJ criticised a provision that allows the executive to withhold information from Parliament on grounds of national security, arguing that it reverses the constitutional balance between the legislature and the executive.
To address these issues, ILRAJ recommended restoring Parliament’s approval role in key appointments and reinstating the Public Service Commission’s involvement in staffing. It also called for the establishment of independent oversight bodies, tighter limits on the powers of the State Protection Service, and mandatory judicial authorisation for surveillance activities.
The organisation further proposed the introduction of whistle-blower protections and amendments to ensure that disputes over withheld information are determined by the High Court rather than the executive.
ILRAJ emphasised that a credible national security framework must be grounded in the rule of law and enjoy public trust, urging lawmakers to adopt its recommendations before passing the Bill.
