By Sylvester Samai
One of the most compelling reasons for the change of power in 2018 from the All People’s Congress, APC or “Tolongbo” to the Sierra Leone People’s Party SLPP or “Paopa” was largely the issue of hunger. The APC was hugely criticized due to the fact that majority Sierra Leoneans believed that hunger was a severe concern at every corner of the country.
Sierra Leoneans, including every class of people protested in 2018 election that the APC known for its nickname “Tolongbo” had nowhere to sit in positions of power simply because the hunger was too much.
This gravely led to the APC defeat in 2018 and 2023. But with has happened under the SLPP watch and still apparent, indicates with clear WHO record that Sierra Leoneans are far more hungrier now than ever in the country’s history, which puts the ‘Paopa’ on record of beating the ‘Tolongbo’ past record by far.
However, six years now down the line of the leadership of President Bio, the issue of hunger has not failed to improve food sufficiency in the country, but has greatly added to the escalation of the issue itself. According to Sierra Leoneans, the hunger situation under the former administration of Ernest Bai Koroma of the APC is by far better than the current situation. Many have argued that if they are to presently choose between now and the former, they will entirely choose the previous government. This is due to the disillusionment among citizens by the Bio-led administration. Citizens have now become more despondent about the fate of Sierra Leone, more so when it comes to food sufficiency.
The Bio administration ousted the APC simply on the ground of too much of hunger in the country prior to the APC exit from power in 2018. Furthermore, this decision of citizens by then hugely hinged on the hope and expectations they had in the fabulous promises of the main opposition party the, SLPP. Sierra Leoneans believed that there was a great need for a change of power from Red to Green, and they thought that was going to bring them a permanent redemption from the crisis. Unfortunately, this government under the look of Bio has just exacerbated the hunger crisis in the nation, thereby leaving citizens very despondent and frustrated, as most of them usually go to bed hungry.
Ernest Bai Koroma’s presidency (2007-2018) was marked by significant challenges, including the global economic recession, the Ebola outbreak, and falling commodity prices, which severely impacted Sierra Leone’s economy. Despite these challenges, Koroma’s administration made some strides in addressing hunger and food insecurity.
Under Koroma, the government implemented several agricultural initiatives aimed at boosting food production. The Agenda for Change (2008-2012) and the Agenda for Prosperity (2013-2018) were two major policy frameworks that focused on improving agricultural productivity. These initiatives included the distribution of farming inputs, the construction of feeder roads, and the promotion of smallholder agriculture. The government also worked with international partners to introduce projects that aimed to increase rice production, the staple food in Sierra Leone.
Despite these efforts, hunger remained a significant problem during Koroma’s tenure. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported that over 40% of Sierra Leone’s population was food insecure during this period. The impact of Ebola in 2014 impaired the situation, disrupting farming activities and leading to a sharp increase in food prices. While Koroma’s administration managed to stabilize the situation post-Ebola, the progress made was not sufficient to significantly reduce hunger across the country.
Julius Maada Bio’s ascent to power in 2018 was fueled by a wave of dissatisfaction with the Koroma administration’s handling of the economy, corruption, and social issues, with hunger being a central concern. Bio’s campaign capitalized on these grievances, with promises to address hunger and improve food security through robust agricultural reforms.
The “New Direction” manifesto, under the Paopa faction, which outlined Bio’s policy priorities, promised to transform the agricultural sector, ensure food self-sufficiency, and reduce hunger. Key pledges included increasing agricultural funding, promoting mechanized farming, and improving rural infrastructure to facilitate access to markets. Bio also promised to revive the cooperative movement, which was seen as a potential vehicle for boosting agricultural production and ensuring that farmers received fair prices for their produce.
These promises resonated with a populace tired of high food prices, chronic food shortages, and the inadequacies of the previous administration. Bio’s victory was, in part, a mandate to address these issues, with the expectation that his government would deliver tangible improvements in food security.
Six years into Bio’s presidency, the reality on the ground paints a starkly different picture from the promises made during the 2018 campaign. Hunger remains widespread, and in some areas, it has even worsened. The Bio administration’s inability to deliver on its promises has led to widespread disillusionment, particularly among those who voted for him with the hope of seeing an end to hunger.
One of the critical failures of the Bio administration has been its inability to implement the promised agricultural reforms effectively. The government’s flagship “Feed Salone” initiative, which was supposed to drive agricultural productivity and reduce hunger, has been widely criticized as a failure. The initiative has been plagued by mismanagement, corruption, and a lack of clear direction. Instead of boosting food production, the program has been characterized by wasteful spending and poor implementation, leading to little or no improvement in the agricultural sector.
Moreover, the economic policies under Bio have exacerbated food insecurity. The inflation rate has soared, and the local currency has depreciated significantly, leading to skyrocketing food prices. The government’s austerity measures, while necessary to stabilize the economy, have disproportionately impacted the poor, who are the most vulnerable to hunger. The situation has been further aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted supply chains and led to job losses, pushing more people into poverty and hunger.
When comparing the hunger situation under Koroma and Bio, several critical differences and similarities emerge. Both administrations faced significant external challenges that impacted their ability to address hunger—Ebola under Koroma and COVID-19 under Bio. However, the effectiveness of their responses and the long-term impact on food security differ markedly.
Under Koroma, despite the challenges, there was at least some progress in improving agricultural productivity and food security. The government’s efforts, while not sufficient to eliminate hunger, did contribute to stabilizing the situation, particularly after the Ebola crisis. The construction of feeder roads and the distribution of farming inputs helped to boost food production in some areas, although the benefits were not widespread.
In contrast, Bio’s administration has failed to make any significant progress in addressing hunger. The “Feed Salone” initiative, which was supposed to be the cornerstone of Bio’s agricultural policy, has been a disaster. The government’s inability to manage the program effectively, coupled with rampant corruption, has meant that little has been achieved in terms of increasing food production or improving food security. Moreover, the economic mismanagement under Bio has led to a sharp increase in food prices, making it even harder for the poor to access basic necessities.
Another critical difference is the level of accountability and transparency in dealing with hunger and food security issues. Under Koroma, while there were certainly issues of corruption and mismanagement, there was at least some level of accountability. International partners were involved in monitoring and evaluating the government’s agricultural programs, which helped to ensure that some progress was made. In contrast, under Bio, there has been a complete lack of transparency and accountability. The “Feed Salone” initiative, for example, has been shrouded in secrecy, with little information available on how funds have been spent or what has been achieved.
The Bio administration’s failure to address hunger is not just a result of poor implementation of policies; it is also a reflection of deeper issues within the government. Corruption, mismanagement, and a lack of political will have all played a role in the administration’s inability to deliver on its promises.
Corruption remains a significant issue under Bio’s government, with several high-profile scandals involving the misappropriation of funds meant for agricultural projects. These scandals have undermined public trust in the government and have made it even more difficult to address the issue of hunger. Moreover, the government’s focus on maintaining power at all costs has meant that little attention has been paid to the needs of the poor and vulnerable.
Another critical issue is the lack of political will to address hunger. Despite the rhetoric, it is clear that hunger has not been a priority for the Bio administration. The government has been more focused on consolidating power and dealing with internal party conflicts than on addressing the pressing issue of food insecurity. This lack of focus has meant that even well-intentioned policies have failed to make an impact.
The failure to address hunger under Bio is particularly egregious given that it was one of the key reasons for his election. The fact that hunger has worsened under his administration is a damning indictment of his government’s ability to deliver on its promises. The failure to address hunger is not just a policy failure; it is a moral failure, as it shows a complete disregard for the suffering of the most vulnerable members of society.
The comparison between hunger under President Koroma and President Bio reveals a troubling decline in the government’s ability to address one of the most critical issues facing Sierra Leone. While Koroma’s administration had its flaws, there were at least some efforts to improve food security and reduce hunger. In contrast, Bio’s administration has failed miserably in this regard, with hunger worsening under his watch. The promises made during the 2018 campaign have not been fulfilled, and the “New Direction” has led Sierra Leone further into the abyss of food insecurity.
The Bio administration’s failure to address hunger is a significant betrayal of the trust placed in it by the people of Sierra Leone. It is a stark reminder that political promises must be backed by effective action, and that the government has a moral obligation to prioritize the needs of the most vulnerable. As Sierra Leone continues to grapple with the issue of hunger, it is clear that a change in approach is urgently needed. The lessons from the failures of both Koroma and Bio should serve as a guide for future leaders, who must prioritize food security as a fundamental right for all citizens.