By Sahr Ibrahim Komba
When the Commissions of Inquiry (COI) were established in 2018 by President Julius Maada Bio, they carried the hopes of a nation long burdened by public sector corruption. Framed as a bold and necessary step toward transparency and accountability, the inquiries promised to hold former public officials accountable for the misuse and mismanagement of state resources during the administration of ex-President Ernest Bai Koroma (2007–2018).
More than five years on, the question remains: what has become of the COI’s recommendations?
The COIs were initiated following a Government Transition Team Report, which alleged rampant corruption in the former All People’s Congress (APC)-led government. Three commissions, led by Justices from Nigeria and Ghana, were tasked with investigating governance, procurement, and financial management practices across ministries, departments, and agencies between 2007 and 2018.
The inquiries uncovered significant irregularities, including inflated contracts, unauthorized bank transfers, and the improper acquisition of state properties. The COIs recommended asset recovery, bans on certain individuals from holding public office, criminal prosecutions in some cases, and broad institutional reforms.
In 2020, the government released a White Paper endorsing the bulk of the COIs’ findings. It promised swift action: properties were to be confiscated, funds recovered, and individuals barred from public service for at least three years. The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) was positioned to play a lead role in the recovery process, with a proposed Special Asset Recovery Division to follow up on implementation.
Initially, these steps were welcomed by the public, many of whom saw the process as a long-overdue reckoning with impunity in public service. Some assets were seized, and accounts frozen. However, that momentum quickly met resistance.
From the outset, the opposition APC criticized the COIs as politically motivated and lacking in due process. Several of those named in the reports challenged the recommendations in court, arguing that the commissions violated constitutional protections and failed to meet basic standards of justice, including the right to cross-examine witnesses.
In 2023, the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone ruled that certain procedures used by the COIs particularly relating to evidence collection and the application of foreign judges without Sierra Leone Bar clearance were unconstitutional. This dealt a significant blow to the enforcement of the COIs’ recommendations and weakened the government’s legal standing on several recovery cases.
Since the court ruling, the government’s drive to implement the COI recommendations has visibly slowed. While some properties remain under state control and a few officials have complied with restitution demands, the broader recovery process has been uneven.
Critics argue that the enthusiasm that greeted the COIs has given way to political expediency. With national unity and dialogue becoming more urgent in a post-election climate, the administration appears less inclined to reopen divisive battles. Meanwhile, civil society organizations continue to press for transparency and action, warning that failing to enforce the recommendations undermines the credibility of anti-corruption efforts.
The Commissions of Inquiry were a bold experiment in post-conflict governance, accountability, and democratic renewal. But their fate serves as a reminder that legal reform and political will must go hand in hand. The recommendations provided a clear path for cleaning up public service and deterring future corruption, but their limited implementation highlights the structural and political challenges Sierra Leone still faces.
If Sierra Leone is to move forward as a nation committed to good governance and rule of law, it must find the courage to enforce anti-corruption measures without fear or favour. The legacy of the COIs now lies not in what they uncovered, but in what we do or fail to do with their findings.
The opposition All People’s Congress criticized the recommendations and called the process a witch-hunt on past government officials.
Dr. Samura Kamara 2018-2023 APC Presidential Candidate said that “The Commissions of Inquiry were not about justice they were about political score-settling. You cannot talk about accountability without fairness. Our party supports the fight against corruption, but it must be done according to law, not by scapegoating opponents.”
Dr. Kamara consistently criticized the COIs as lacking due process and transparency. He and other APC leaders maintained that the findings were intended to discredit the APC ahead of the 2023 elections.
APC Official Party Position (as stated in a 2020 press release)
“The All People’s Congress categorically rejects the White Paper issued by the Government. It is nothing more than a witch-hunt disguised as anti-corruption. We call on all democratic institutions, including the judiciary, to protect the rights of our members and ensure that justice is not abused for political gain.”
The opposition’s central argument has consistently been that the COI process was politically motivated, procedurally flawed, and used selectively against APC officials. While they claim to support anti-corruption initiatives, they demand that proper legal channels, judicial independence, and fair trial standards be upheld in the enforcement of COI recommendations.
The European Union Delegation to Sierra Leone (2020) supported the report noting that they
“We support Sierra Leone’s efforts to promote good governance and fight corruption. The Commissions of Inquiry represent a step toward greater accountability. However, it is essential that the process follows legal standards, protects human rights, and remains free from political interference.”
The EU emphasized the importance of rule of law and due process while backing the broader aim of accountability through the COIs.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP – 2019 Statement reiterated their support for due process and commented the government of Sierra Leone
“We commend the Government of Sierra Leone for initiating accountability measures such as the COIs. We encourage continued transparency and inclusiveness to ensure public trust in the process and outcomes.”
UNDP supported institutional strengthening efforts, including legal reform and capacity building within the Anti-Corruption Commission.
The United States Embassy in Freetown in a Press Release stated that “The United States supports lawful and impartial processes aimed at curbing corruption. The Commissions of Inquiry must not only uphold constitutional protections but also avoid any perception of political bias.”The U.S. emphasized fair implementation, urging that anti-corruption efforts should be objective and legally sound.
The Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law (CARL-SL) one of the leading civil society organizations in Sierra Leone noted that “The Commissions of Inquiry provide a rare opportunity to address impunity for corruption. However, the enforcement of recommendations must be consistent with legal procedures. We call on the judiciary and enforcement agencies to act independently and transparently.” CARL supported the COIs but also warned against arbitrary asset seizures or politically selective enforcement.
The Budget Advocacy Network (BAN) furthered that “The COIs were a chance to improve fiscal accountability. Yet, without full implementation of the recommendations, especially around procurement reform and financial oversight, we risk repeating the same governance failures.”
BAN urged the government to focus on long-term reforms rather than only punishing individuals.
President Julius Maada Bio (State House Speech, 2020) said that “The people of Sierra Leone deserve justice and accountability. The Commissions of Inquiry were not about politics they were about protecting public resources and restoring trust in leadership. We will act on the recommendations in accordance with the law.”
President Bio strongly defended the legitimacy of the COIs, presenting them as a moral imperative for governance reform.
Anti-Corruption Commissioner Francis Ben Kaifala in a Public Statement said “We do not chase people, we chase evidence. Where COI recommendations point to wrongdoing, we act. But we ensure every case goes through legal scrutiny. This is not about revenge; it’s about restoring public integrity.”
Commissioner Kaifala has reiterated that the ACC only acts on COI matters that meet legal thresholds for prosecution or recovery.
The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) of Sierra Leone has made some strides in implementing the findings and recommendations from Commissions of Inquiry (COIs), though progress has been limited and subject to political/legal challenges.
The establishment of three COIs covering November 2007 to April 2018 investigated senior officials from the previous APC administration and there were over 300 individuals implicated, including Dr. Richard Konteh.
Chief among these inquiries, Commission #2 (led by Justice Bankole-Thompson) concluded that the use of COIs exceeded the scope of legal authority, describing the process as “not reasonable or permissible” and “not cognizable” under the COI framework.
For those cases stemming from Auditor General’s reports (2019–2023), the ACC launched prompt probes, initiated criminal and civil processes, carried out asset recoveries, and secured convictions through the Special Anti-Corruption Division of the High Court
However, for COI-related cases, many accused, including Richard Konteh, were later exonerated Konteh received a full “Certificate of Discharge” in February 2023 through the Appeals Court
The ACC expanded its mandate with the 2019 Anti-Corruption Act amendments, establishing the Special Anti-Corruption Division and the elite “Scorpion Squad,” as well as systems review and public outreach units
Since 2018, ACC has conducted systems reviews across 14 MDAs, issuing 461 recommendations, of which 336 (73%) were adopted
The ACC has been consistent in issuing serialized media releases and presenting compliance progress reports to various MDAs and local councils an effort to follow up implementation of recommendations
The Bankole-Thompson finding significantly undermined the legal foundation of many COI reports, hampering the ACC’s ability to proceed with prosecutions based on them
Political Interference & Focus Shift: Human rights reports noted that the ACC has rarely targeted the most senior officials, and public confidence in its impartiality has been mixed.
While Auditor General-driven cases have led to convictions and asset recovery, COI-related cases especially those directed at high-ranking figures largely did not yield convictions and, in some instances, saw those accused exonerated.
The ACC has made solid progress in implementing recommendations from audit-based inquiry findings, with robust investigation, prosecution, and systems compliance.
However, the Commissions of Inquiry tied to political-era accountability have seen limited traction, largely due to legal flaws in their establishment and judicial pushback demonstrated by court dismissals and acquittals.
