Sierra Leone is at crossroads at the moment; and a vast majority of Sierra Leoneans including the international community would have to decide between having democracy or a continuum of President Julius Maada Bio’s legacy.
This means either President Bio is allowed to complete and democracy rots or Bio takes the back seat and democracy thrives. It is a hard choice, but it should be made.
Sierra Leone has never been at ease since the June 24, 2023 Presidential election result was brutally hijacked by the incumbent, Julius Maada Bio.
To prevent conflict and maintain the peace of the state, a Tripartite Committee consisting of government, the main opposition, All People’s Congress (APC) and Development Partners was set up to look into irregularities alleged to have taken place in June polls.
The Committee has completed its work and presented its findings and recommendations to government for implementation.
The international community is closely monitoring the situation to see if government can comply with the demands of the people of Sierra Leone and the international community.
The sub-regional bloc, ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States), according to credible sources, have been mandated to implement the recommendations in partnership with UNOWAS (United Nations Office for West Africa and the Sahel).
By all standards, the implementation is about the restoration of democratic order in Sierra Leone after its seeming demise in June, 2023.
The restoration of democracy means either fresh election is held or power handed over to the winner of the elections as well as holding accountable those who allegedly rigged the elections in favour of the ruling party.
But, analysts say the implementation is being done at a snail-pace while the people suffer under the weight of hardship, poverty and corruption.
The most popular debate within the public is whether President Bio should be allowed to rule for a second term or democracy is maintained by ensuring a political transition-hand over power to the widely perceived winner of the elections so that Sierra Leone move out of the woods. It is believed that
Development Partners would fund the government, and Sierra Leone’s image abroad restored if democracy is kept alive.
Many Sierra Leoneans wanted to see a handing over of power to the opposition candidate, Samura Kamara who many say is the winner of the June polls.
In a true democracy, the man who make it in the polls should rule and not the reverse except in countries where the votes of electoral colleges carry heavy weight than those of the ordinary voters.
In democratic Sierra Leone, a government exercises power based on the will of the majority through the ballot box.
This view is supported by the country’s constitution which says in section 5 that “Sovereignty belongs to the people of Sierra Leone from whom government, through this Constitution, derives its powers, legitimacy and authority.”
The Public Elections Act, 2022 also contains clauses that protect free, fair and credible elections in Sierra Leone.
Sierra Leone is also a signatory to several treaties and conventions that protect democracy and good governance among which are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, 1989 among others.
Apart from documentary proof of the protection of democracy in Sierra Leone, powerful countries such as the US, UK, Germany, France, Ireland and others have contributed human and material resources to Sierra Leone to strengthen democracy. The EU too has played important role in the democratization of Sierra Leone not only by observing elections but helping the country deliver services to their people.
The EU is on record to have supported government in the construction of key roads and bridges across the country namely: the Freetown-Kambia, Masiaka-Bo, Bo-Liberia road projects among others.
Other countries have also helped in the provision of electricity and other services.
UK takes the lead in the fight against corruption as evidenced by the tremendous support to the country’s Anti-Corruption Commission which prevents, investigates and prosecutes incidents of corruption. The UK also heavily supported the defunct Biobele Georgewill Commissions of Inquiry which investigated the past government about the management of public finances.
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has been supporting the judiciary in the areas of training and payment of salaries. Commonwealth’s role in the restructuring of the Sierra Leone Police between 1998 and 2003 is still being remembered today. The Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces also benefitted from a reform package launched by the UK through her military Wing, IMATT (International Military Advisory Training Team). All these forms of aid to Sierra Leone is done to strengthen democracy as it is only in democratic states that the people are assured of their freedom, security and welfare. Political analysts have consistently argued that there is abundant evidence to show that since the 1980s, democratic states have delivered to their people while autocratic states failed woefully.
Besides, terrible memories about the sacrifices made by the US, UK, Russia, Ukraine and several African countries to restore democracy and peace in war-torn Sierra Leone still lingers.
Other popular arguments also show that the greatest asset of democracy is the transfer of power of one party to the other without bloody revolutions and bloodbath.
It is for the protection of democracy through stopping violent change of government that treason, the highest offence known to the criminal law, has a fine place in Sierra Leone’s legal system.
Suffice it to say that if the people choose for Bio to forge ahead for another term despite clear facts that he does not win the election, or he is left akimbo to once again manipulate the electoral system to ensure the continuity of his chosen successor and the SLPP, then it would be a sheer loss to the people who had collectively stood against the anti-democratic National Provisional Ruling Council I & II (NPRC 1 & 2) in sacrifice for the restoration of democracy and all its attendants benefits.
On the other hand, certain sections of Sierra Leone argue that President Julius Maada Bio should be allowed to rule in the interest of peace and security.
It is clear that any transfer of power from the ruling party to the opposition will undermine law and order in the country as many SLPP (Sierra Leone People’s Party) grassroots argue that democracy means 10 years for each government.
This argument, without doubt, has reached the last man in the last village in the South-East regions, strongholds of the ruling party.
Many Sierra Leoneans have also maintained that that it is in the interest of peace and security that APC’s executive officials seem to have thrown their weight behind President Bio to end his term in 2028 although others hold contrary views. For them, if Bio is allowed to move on, they will not take part in any democratic process signaling the death of democracy and reintroduction of a one-party state.