By Musa Paul Feika
Chief Minister Dr David Moinina Sengeh has found himself at the centre of an uncomfortable public accountability debate after struggling to provide a straightforward answer about his salary during a televised discussion on transparency, governance and national cohesion.
For a senior government official serving in a country where citizens continue to demand accountability from public institutions, his explanation raises an obvious question: how can a public servant defend transparency while admitting that he does not know how much he earns?
The exchange, which began with a discussion about the importance of transparency in promoting peace and national cohesion, quickly turned into a test of public accountability. Instead of providing a clear figure, Dr Sengeh repeatedly maintained that he did not know his salary and challenged those interested in the information to seek it from the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC).
His response may have been intended to defend a personal principle, but it has left room for criticism about the relationship between public office, personal responsibility and accountability to taxpayers.
When asked whether he would disclose his salary as Chief Minister, Dr Sengeh said he received one salary despite holding multiple professional roles. He explained that his salary information had been declared to the ACC and was publicly available.
However, the interviewer pressed him on why he could not simply provide the figure himself, particularly when the information concerned a public official whose remuneration is a legitimate matter of public interest. Dr. Sengeh maintained that he did not know the amount and insisted that people interested in finding out could approach the ACC.
That response raises a basic question of public administration: is it unreasonable to expect a senior public official to know his own remuneration?
The Chief Minister may have a personal arrangement under which another person manages his bank account, but managing one’s finances and knowing one’s salary are not necessarily the same thing. Even if someone else handles his banking, it is reasonable for citizens to expect him to know the basic terms of his public employment.
The issue is not whether Dr. Sengeh has the right to privacy in his personal financial affairs. Rather, it is whether a salary paid from public resources should be treated as information too inconvenient for the recipient to disclose directly.
One of the most striking aspects of the exchange was Dr Sengeh’s insistence that those seeking his salary should go to the ACC because the information had already been declared.
But transparency is not merely about whether information exists somewhere in a government institution. It is also about how public officials respond when legitimate questions are asked of them.
If a public official knows that information is publicly accessible, directing citizens to the appropriate institution may be acceptable. However, when the question concerns his own salary, repeatedly refusing to provide a figure that he could reasonably be expected to know risks creating the impression that accountability is an inconvenience rather than a responsibility.
The Chief Minister also suggested that some people asking about his salary were motivated by a desire to embarrass him or portray him as lacking transparency.
That may be his interpretation of their motives, but it does not automatically invalidate the question.
In a democracy, public officials cannot determine the legitimacy of every question solely by how they perceive the intentions of those asking it. A question may be politically motivated and still concern a matter of legitimate public interest.The proper response to a fair question is not necessarily to accept the questioner’s motives, but to address the substance of the issue.
The interviewer also challenged Dr Sengeh over an earlier reported comment that asking about his salary was rude. During the exchange, he said he did not remember making such a statement.
Nevertheless, the broader issue remains important. Is asking a government official how much he earns an act of disrespect, or is it a legitimate exercise of public scrutiny?
In a country where public resources are limited and citizens expect government institutions to operate transparently, questions about the remuneration of senior officials should not automatically be interpreted as personal attacks.
Public office carries responsibilities that extend beyond the ordinary expectations of private employment. Citizens have a legitimate interest in understanding how public money is spent, including the salaries and benefits paid to senior government officials, subject to applicable laws and appropriate privacy protections.
If the salary information is already public, disclosing it should not ordinarily require a prolonged argument about principle, embarrassment or personal financial arrangements.
Perhaps the most unusual explanation came when Dr Sengeh said that his bank account had been managed by someone else since he was 19 years old. He also referred to receiving six figures for a book he had written, explaining that the payment went into the account managed by that person.
However, this explanation did not directly resolve the question of his official salary. Having another person manage an account may explain why someone does not personally monitor every transaction, but it does not, by itself, establish that the account holder cannot know how much he earns from public office.Nor does the reference to income from book writing answer the original question about government remuneration.
The distinction matters because the debate concerns a specific, verifiable figure: the salary attached to his public position. That figure could potentially be confirmed through the relevant employment and public financial records.
If Dr Sengeh genuinely does not know the amount, the public deserves a clear explanation of how his remuneration is determined, what official records disclose and whether his position comes with additional allowances or benefits. These are questions that can be answered factually without turning the matter into a personal confrontation.
Dr Sengeh’s reference to his declaration at the ACC is relevant, but asset declaration and public disclosure of remuneration are not necessarily identical obligations.
An asset declaration is intended to support the monitoring of public officials’ financial interests and help prevent corruption, in accordance with the applicable legal framework. Public disclosure of salary, meanwhile, helps citizens understand the cost of public office.
Whether every detail must be disclosed directly by an official depends on the applicable law and disclosure rules. However, where salary information is lawfully available to the public, accessibility should strengthen accountability rather than become a reason to avoid a straightforward response.
The controversy also provides an opportunity to ask broader questions about Sierra Leone’s public sector. Are salary scales for senior officials sufficiently accessible? Are remuneration packages, allowances and benefits clearly explained? Do citizens have a reliable way to obtain this information without depending on political arguments or media confrontations?
These questions should be addressed through consistent disclosure standards that apply to all public officials, regardless of political affiliation.
Ultimately, the debate is not about whether Dr. Sengeh is entitled to manage his personal finances as he chooses. It is about whether the country’s Chief Minister can convincingly champion transparency while leaving a basic question about his public remuneration unanswered.
His explanation that another person has managed his account since he was 19 may be a genuine personal arrangement. But it does not remove the expectation that a senior public official should understand the financial terms of his appointment.
If the salary is public information, the simplest way to address the controversy would be to provide the verified figure or identify the official record containing it.
For a government that speaks about peace, national cohesion and accountable leadership, public confidence is built not only through speeches and declarations but also through clear, consistent answers to legitimate questions.
Dr. Sengeh may believe that his critics are focusing on the wrong things. Yet, in a democracy, citizens are entitled to decide which questions matter to them, particularly when those questions concern public money.
The uncomfortable question is therefore not simply how much the Chief Minister earns. It is why a straightforward question about public remuneration has become such a difficult conversation.