By: Sayoh Kamara
As Sierra Leone edges closer to the end of President Julius Maada Bio’s second and constitutionally final term, a new and controversial proposal has entered the national political discourse: the introduction of a power-sharing model into the country’s governance architecture through the ongoing constitutional review process. On the surface, this proposal is framed as a peace-building and unity-enhancing mechanism. Beneath that surface, however, lie serious questions of motive, timing, and democratic integrity.
The controversy is sharpened by President Bio’s own well-articulated ambition to ensure continuity of the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) beyond his tenure, a move that would position the party as the first in the country’s history to rule for three consecutive terms. Against this backdrop, the power-sharing proposal does not appear politically neutral; rather, it is increasingly viewed by many citizens as strategic and self-serving.
Public sentiment has been clear. A recent opinion barometer survey revealed that 75 percent of Sierra Leoneans reject power-sharing, preferring instead the traditional winner-takes-it-all electoral model. In a democracy, such a decisive expression of popular will should not be casually dismissed. Governance systems derive legitimacy not from elite consensus but from the consent of the governed.
Winner-takes-it-all, though often criticized for its rigidity, offers something power-sharing does not: clarity and accountability. It clearly identifies who governs, who opposes, and who bears responsibility for policy successes or failures. Power-sharing, by contrast, often blurs lines of responsibility, weakens opposition oversight, and risks turning elections into symbolic exercises rather than decisive democratic contests.
Concerns have also been raised about the process through which this proposal may be advanced. The idea, reportedly championed by the Speaker of Parliament and backed by an SLPP-dominated legislature, has triggered fears of a rushed constitutional amendment designed to override opposition resistance. Such legislative haste, especially on a matter as foundational as the system of governance, undermines the spirit of constitutionalism and deepens political mistrust.
Context matters. The SLPP government’s tenure since 2017 has been persistently dogged by allegations of corruption, selective justice, abuse of state security institutions, and democratic backsliding. Within this context, many observers interpret the power-sharing proposal less as a national peace project and more as a protective political arrangement—a potential haven against post-tenure accountability under the rule of law.
For the main opposition All People’s Congress (APC), the issue is therefore not inclusion but democratic restoration. The APC argues that before any discussion of shared governance can be meaningful, Sierra Leone must first guarantee free and fair elections, respect for civil liberties, and the depoliticization of state institutions. To them, power-sharing under current conditions risks legitimizing coercion, electoral malpractice, and governance failure.
It is also worth recalling that power-sharing arrangements are typically adopted in moments of national crisis—post-war transitions or disputed electoral breakdowns—not imposed preemptively in the absence of a constitutional deadlock. When introduced late in an incumbent’s rule and against popular opinion, such arrangements are more likely to be perceived as instruments of political survival rather than national unity.
This is why, at this juncture in Sierra Leone’s democratic journey, winner-takes-it-all remains the preferable option. It respects the will of the majority, preserves the sanctity of elections, strengthens accountability, and ensures that political power remains firmly anchored in the ballot box—not elite bargains.
Ultimately, the debate over power-sharing is a debate about trust: trust in leadership intentions, trust in democratic institutions, and trust in the future of constitutional governance. Sierra Leoneans are not demanding elite accommodation; they are demanding credible elections, accountable leadership, and justice under the rule of law.
Until those demands are met, power-sharing will continue to look less like a path to unity and more like a tricky detour away from genuine democracy.
