By Mohamed Mattia
The maiden edition of Sierra Leone’s Political Marathon published by the Institute for Governance Reform (Institute for Governance Reform) has been roundly condemned by political analysts, party stakeholders, and informed observers as a technically defective, analytically weak, and profoundly misleading document that falls far below acceptable standards of serious political research.
Far from contributing constructively to democratic discourse, the report has been described as a dangerous exercise in statistical gymnastics—one that elevates speculation over substance, opinion over process, and rumour over reality.
At the heart of the backlash is the report’s bold but deeply questionable claim that among 26 individuals “rumoured” to be aspiring flagbearers within the All People’s Congress (All People’s Congress) and the Sierra Leone People’s Party (Sierra Leone People’s Party), only Sheikh Mohamed Kamara, alias Jagaban of the APC, secured a 50-plus percent endorsement, while no individual within the ruling SLPP achieved a majority leaving the party’s race “wide open” .
Critics argue that this conclusion is not merely weak, it is fundamentally indefensible.
One of the most damning technical flaws in the report is its reliance on a nationwide survey of the general adult population, rather than verified party members or accredited delegates who constitutionally determine flagbearer outcomes. Internal party democracy is exercised through structured delegate systems, not through casual supporters or self-identified sympathisers scattered across the electorate.
Even more troubling, the report openly admits that there is no sampling frame of registered party members and that respondents merely self-identified as supporters or members. This alone renders any attempt to draw conclusions about internal party decision-making processes methodologically bankrupt.
You cannot measure delegate-driven processes by surveying people who do not participate in those processes. Doing so is not innovation, it is analytical malpractice.
Equally alarming is the report’s decision to compile and assess 26 so-called “potential aspirants” drawn from media speculation, despite acknowledging that neither major party has officially declared the flagbearer race open or recognised any aspirant at the time of the study.
This reckless approach effectively transforms political gossip into quantified “likability” and “electability” scores, creating false impressions of momentum, legitimacy, and inevitability. In a politically sensitive environment, such distortion is not harmless—it is inflammatory.
Serious research institutions do not build national political narratives on rumours. Doing so undermines public trust and compromises the integrity of the research community.
While the report boasts a sample size of 1,200 respondents and a ±3 percent margin of error, experts stress that statistical confidence is meaningless when the underlying research question is fundamentally misconceived. Precision does not compensate for irrelevance.
No amount of weighting or confidence intervals can justify using a general population survey to predict or evaluate outcomes that are constitutionally restricted to party structures and delegates.
Ironically, a publication that claims to promote internal party democracy ends up trivialising it by ignoring how parties actually function. By conflating public opinion with internal governance mechanisms, the report risks misleading citizens, fuelling factional tensions, and unfairly framing political actors ahead of the 2028 elections.
Democracy is strengthened by rigorous, honest, and context-aware research not by sensational conclusions built on shaky foundations.
Civil society actors and political observers are now calling on the Institute for Governance Reform to subject its work to serious methodological review and to retract or substantially revise conclusions that are unsupported by its own limitations.
Sierra Leone deserves better than research that blurs the line between analysis and advocacy, or between evidence and conjecture. In an era where public trust in institutions is already fragile, think tanks must be part of the solution not contributors to confusion.
This report, in its current form, is not a benchmark of democratic analysis. It is a cautionary tale of how flawed methodology can produce loud headlines and hollow conclusions.
