Two administrations stand out in the recent political history of Sierra Leone: the first six years of President Ernest Bai Koroma under the All People’s Congress (APC) and President Julius Maada Bio’s initial six years under the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP). While Koroma’s tenure is celebrated for its tangible development and national growth, Bio’s presidency has been marked by unfulfilled promises, governance challenges, and public dissatisfaction. This article critically compares and contrasts the achievements and failures of both leaders, demonstrating how Koroma’s administration, despite its imperfections, outshines Bio’s presidency in terms of national progress.
President Ernest Bai Koroma: A Legacy of Tangible Development:
President Ernest Bai Koroma assumed office in 2007, inheriting a nation recovering from the scars of an 11-year civil war. His administration prioritized infrastructural development, energy revitalization, and economic growth. One of Koroma’s most celebrated achievements was his commitment to addressing Sierra Leone’s chronic energy crisis. Freetown, which had been dubbed “the darkest city in the world,” experienced a transformative change under Koroma’s leadership. Through the Bumbuna Hydro-Electric Project and other initiatives, his government significantly increased electricity access, bringing light to homes, businesses, and public spaces. This singular achievement resonated deeply with citizens, as it directly improved their quality of life.
Infrastructure development became another hallmark of Koroma’s presidency. Roads were constructed and rehabilitated across the country, connecting previously isolated districts and fostering trade and commerce. Major cities like Freetown, Makeni, Bo, and Koidu saw improvements in road networks, while rural areas experienced development that had been absent for decades. Koroma’s slogan, “Agenda for Change,” encapsulated his focus on progress, and his administration made strides in healthcare, education, and private sector investment.
Koroma’s leadership style also emphasized inclusivity in national development. Despite resistance from some regions, particularly in Kenema and other parts of the Eastern Province, his administration made efforts to implement development projects nationwide. However, it is worth noting that political polarization and regional loyalties often created barriers to the equitable distribution of resources. Nonetheless, Koroma’s first six years were marked by a sense of optimism and national progress.
President Julius Maada Bio: A Presidency Marred by Broken Promises:
President Julius Maada Bio, who came to power in 2018, was elected on a platform of hope and transformation. His campaign promised a “New Direction” for Sierra Leone, with commitments to free quality education, economic revitalization, and anti-corruption reforms. However, six years into his presidency, Bio’s administration has struggled to deliver on many of these promises.
One of Bio’s flagship initiatives, the Free Quality Education program, initially garnered praise for its ambition to provide free education to children across the country. While the policy increased school enrollment, it has been plagued by inadequate funding, poor infrastructure, and a lack of trained teachers. Many schools lack basic resources, and questions have arisen about the sustainability and effectiveness of the program. Parents and teachers alike have criticized the initiative as more of a political slogan than a meaningful reform.
Bio’s economic policies have also faced scrutiny. Under his administration, Sierra Leone’s economy has grappled with inflation, unemployment, and a high cost of living. Despite promises of economic growth and job creation, many citizens feel that their standard of living has deteriorated. The much-publicized “Feed Salone” initiative, aimed at achieving food security, has been criticized as a failure, with food prices skyrocketing and agricultural productivity stagnating.
Corruption remains a significant challenge under Bio’s presidency. Although his government established the Commission of Inquiry to investigate alleged financial mismanagement under the previous administration, critics argue that the process lacked transparency and was politically motivated. Meanwhile, reports of corruption within Bio’s own government have undermined public trust and confidence.
Comparing Leadership Styles: Promises vs. Performance:
The contrast between Koroma and Bio’s first six years lies in the tangible outcomes of their leadership. Koroma’s administration prioritized infrastructure and energy, delivering visible and impactful projects that improved the lives of ordinary Sierra Leoneans. His government’s focus on “bread-and-butter” issues resonated with citizens, and despite political challenges, he left office in 2018 with a legacy of development.
In contrast, Bio’s presidency has been characterized by unfulfilled promises and a lack of focus on practical solutions. While his rhetoric of transformation inspired hope, the gap between promises and performance has widened over time. Citizens who expected a departure from past governance failures have been disappointed by the slow pace of progress and the prevalence of economic hardships.
Bio’s administration has also faced criticism for its approach to governance. Allegations of tribalism and favoritism have created divisions within the country, undermining the sense of national unity that Koroma’s administration sought to foster. The perception that Bio prioritizes his political base over the broader interests of Sierra Leone has further eroded his popularity.
Regional Dynamics and Public Perception:
Regional dynamics have played a significant role in shaping public perception of both leaders. Koroma, who hails from the northern region, faced resistance from the predominantly SLPP stronghold of Kenema and other parts of the east. Despite this, his administration implemented development projects in these areas, albeit with limited success in winning over local support. The reluctance of some regions to embrace Koroma’s initiatives reflects the deep-seated political and ethnic divisions that continue to challenge Sierra Leone’s progress.
Bio, on the other hand, has enjoyed strong support in the southeast, particularly in Kenema. However, his inability to translate this support into nationwide development has led to growing dissatisfaction, even among his political base. Critics argue that Bio’s reliance on regional loyalty has limited his ability to govern effectively and inclusively.
Legacy and Future Implications:
As Sierra Leone reflects on the first six years of Bio’s presidency and compares it to Koroma’s tenure, the differences in their legacies are stark. Koroma’s administration, despite its flaws, demonstrated a commitment to tangible development and national growth. His focus on infrastructure, energy, and economic empowerment laid a foundation for progress that Sierra Leoneans continue to appreciate.
In contrast, Bio’s presidency has been marred by unfulfilled promises, economic struggles, and governance challenges. While his rhetoric of transformation initially inspired hope, the lack of meaningful progress has left many citizens disillusioned. If Bio’s administration fails to address these shortcomings in the remaining years of his presidency, his legacy may be defined by missed opportunities and un-kept promises.
The first six years of leadership under President Ernest Bai Koroma and President Julius Maada Bio present a tale of two administrations with vastly different outcomes. Koroma’s tenure, marked by tangible development and a focus on national growth, stands in sharp contrast to Bio’s presidency, which has struggled to deliver on its ambitious promises. While Koroma’s legacy is one of progress and fulfillment, Bio’s leadership has so far been defined by stagnation and discontent. As Sierra Leone looks to the future, the lessons from these contrasting presidencies highlight the importance of visionary leadership, accountability, and a commitment to the well-being of all citizens.