By Mahmud Tim Kargbo
Saturday, 7 June 2025
When the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) returned to power in 2018 under the leadership of President Julius Maada Bio, there was widespread anticipation that a new era of principled governance, institutional reform and economic renewal would follow. The party’s campaign rhetoric promised transparency, accountability and inclusive development. Many citizens, fatigued by years of misgovernance, cautiously embraced this vision. However, as the administration enters the later stages of its second term, it is increasingly evident that the promises which once inspired optimism have been largely abandoned. The country is now faced with an economic downturn, institutional decline and growing disaffection. At the heart of this deterioration lies a more subtle but profound affliction: a psychological and political insecurity that casts doubt upon the ruling elite’s confidence in its own legitimacy.
A Crisis of Leadership Confidence
It is worth asking whether the current leaders within the SLPP, including President Bio, truly believe they have earned the authority they now wield. Do they reflect upon the nature of their mandate and the extent to which it is grounded in performance rather than political expediency? Do they recognise that many of the pledges articulated during the 2018 election campaign have either not materialised or have been undermined by their own policies?
Are they aware that their governance has not only failed to meet constitutional obligations but has also fallen short of ethical expectations? The administration was entrusted with the task of alleviating poverty, enhancing institutional capacity and promoting civic freedoms. Instead, it has presided over worsening economic conditions, widespread unemployment and the criminalisation of dissent.
Do members of the ruling elite grasp that their policies increasingly favour the interests of foreign creditors, multinational corporations and geopolitical partners, often to the detriment of Sierra Leonean citizens? Contracts involving the nation’s natural resources are frequently executed in opacity, with limited public consultation and minimal long-term benefit for the population.
Furthermore, do they acknowledge the inherent contradiction in accepting externally imposed conditions from financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, conditions that frequently lead to austerity measures, the erosion of public sector employment and heightened social unrest, while claiming to prioritise national development? Do they fear that their international partners are aware of the cosmetic nature of their reforms, the manipulation of official statistics and the performative nature of governance? Do they dread that public resistance, electoral scrutiny or official audits may eventually expose the lack of genuine leadership, policy coherence and institutional capacity?
These questions reveal an underlying disorder that appears increasingly to characterise the administration: political imposter syndrome. This phenomenon, commonly associated with personal psychology, involves persistent self-doubt among individuals occupying positions of authority. In political terms, it manifests as defensive posturing, image-driven leadership and a growing disconnect between rhetoric and reality.
Rather than confronting these issues transparently, the government has opted for a strategy of deflection and spectacle. Ceremonial events, orchestrated press conferences and stylised public engagements dominate official communication. Meanwhile, the reality for ordinary citizens, marked by economic insecurity, social injustice and diminishing hope, stands in sharp contrast to the administration’s narrative of progress.
Sierra Leone is now confronting not only a developmental crisis, but also a legitimacy crisis. The leadership appears outwardly stable, yet is inwardly compromised by a lack of delivery, internal anxiety and the inability to conduct meaningful self-assessment.
Unfulfilled Manifesto Promises and Constitutional Dereliction
The SLPP’s 2018 manifesto outlined a clear agenda: institutional integrity, economic growth, improved education and the eradication of corruption. These pledges were widely disseminated and formed the foundation of the party’s electoral appeal. However, many of these commitments remain unmet or have been actively contradicted by the administration’s actions.
Notably, the government’s refusal to reinstate an independent Auditor General following her controversial suspension signals a retreat from transparency. Furthermore, the politicisation of public procurement processes and the targeting of opposition voices for prosecution undermine the democratic framework upon which the state is built.
The 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone provides clear guidance on the responsibilities of government. Section 5(2)(b) states:
“The security, peace, welfare and good governance of the people of Sierra Leone shall be the primary purpose of Government.”
(Available at: https://www.sierra-leone.org/Laws/constitution1991.pdf)
Despite this constitutional imperative, the socio-economic indicators reveal a starkly different reality. Inflation is persistently high, the Leone has lost significant value, and basic services such as electricity, healthcare and education remain unreliable or inaccessible to many. The daily experiences of ordinary citizens increasingly reflect abandonment, not stewardship.
Governance and the Collapse of Legitimacy
Francis Fukuyama, in his essay “Delivering for Democracy”, observes:
“Democratic legitimacy ultimately rests not just on fair procedures and regular elections but also on the state’s ability to deliver public goods effectively.”
(Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/delivering-democracy)
In the context of Sierra Leone, the SLPP government fails both tests. Elections have been subject to allegations of irregularity and procedural shortcomings, while public service delivery has deteriorated significantly. State institutions are weakened, policy implementation is inconsistent and citizens feel increasingly excluded from decision-making processes.
Rather than addressing these deficiencies, the government has become reliant on donor narratives, selective data presentation and political pageantry. These tactics may provide temporary international support, but they do little to restore domestic credibility. When citizens observe that official claims of success bear little resemblance to their lived experiences, trust in government deteriorates.
Loyalty Politics and the Dismantling of Meritocracy
A further impediment to effective governance is the administration’s embrace of loyalty politics. Rather than appointing individuals based on merit, qualifications and national interest, many senior positions are awarded based on political loyalty, regional allegiance or ethnic ties. This trend has not only weakened institutional competence, but also exacerbated political tensions and deepened public cynicism.
Indeed, the governing elite appears to lack a clearly defined national objective. They are not in office to fulfil a constitutional or developmental mandate, but rather to facilitate and protect the exploitative interests of neocolonial agendas. This is fundamentally at odds with the democratic principles upon which governments are elected. The business of democratic governance is not intended to serve external actors or private financiers, yet this appears to be the prevailing reality.
There is an urgent need to examine the sources of campaign financing and the influence of those who donate to political parties. The distinction between the SLPP and the opposition All People’s Congress (APC) has become increasingly blurred. Both parties appear to serve overlapping networks of influence, funded by similar interest groups that expect returns on their political investments. This convergence of political financing undermines ideological diversity and policy independence.
Decisions affecting national policy are increasingly being shaped by individuals who often lack contextual understanding of Sierra Leone’s historical, cultural and geographical dynamics. These actors, both foreign and domestic, operate without regard for the nation’s lived realities or the implications of their interventions in the context of the current global order. They do not possess, and have yet to demonstrate, the character or commitment required to serve the interests of the people of Sierra Leone. Their actions reflect not a lack of information, but a lack of concern.
This pattern mirrors the late-stage decline of the APC administration under President Ernest Bai Koroma. In that period, the government prioritised self-preservation over reform, resulting in stagnation, fragmentation and a loss of public confidence. The SLPP appears to be replicating that trajectory.
Ministers and senior officials often devote more attention to defending the President’s image than to advancing development outcomes. Initiatives are frequently announced with great fanfare, yet few are followed through with rigour or transparency. Collective responsibility has been replaced by a culture of deference and public relations, where appearance is valued above performance.
Constitutional Violation and the Erosion of Public Trust
The principle of popular sovereignty is fundamental to Sierra Leone’s constitutional democracy. Section 7(1)(a) of the 1991 Constitution states:
“Sovereignty belongs to the people of Sierra Leone from whom Government through this Constitution derives all its powers, authority and legitimacy.”
(Available at: https://www.sierra-leone.org/Laws/constitution1991.pdf)
This is not merely a symbolic declaration. It establishes the legal and moral foundation of public governance. Any government that persistently fails to serve the population, undermines institutional checks or restricts civic freedoms violates this foundational principle. In doing so, it compromises not only its legitimacy but also the stability of the democratic system.
The current administration’s apparent imposter syndrome reflects a deep awareness of this erosion. The insecurity and defensiveness exhibited by senior officials is not irrational. It is a rational response to the recognition that they are failing to meet the constitutional and ethical expectations of governance.
Towards Restorative Leadership and Institutional Renewal
If the SLPP is to recover public trust and restore its legitimacy, it must undergo a fundamental shift in orientation. Governance must be reconceived as a solemn obligation, not as a privilege sustained by propaganda and foreign endorsement.
Key steps should include the restoration of institutional independence, especially within the judiciary and the Auditor General’s office; the depoliticisation of public appointments; the protection of civil liberties; and the implementation of measurable, transparent development policies.
Ultimately, the legitimacy of any government derives not from its ability to win elections, but from its capacity to uphold the Constitution, serve the public interest and deliver tangible improvements to citizens’ lives. Until these principles are internalised and operationalised, Sierra Leone will continue to be governed by an elite plagued by self-doubt, disconnected from the people and sustained more by illusion than performance.
The future of Sierra Leonean democracy does not rest upon rhetoric, patronage or international approval. It rests upon integrity, competence and an unflinching commitment to public service.
Key References
The Constitution of Sierra Leone, 1991
https://www.sierra-leone.org/Laws/constitution1991.pdf
Francis Fukuyama, Delivering for Democracy, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2024
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/delivering-democracy
