By: Sayoh Kamara
The All Peoples Congress (APC) party is due to institute a vetting process for its flagbearer contenders with view to narrow down the floating number based on certain criteria. The process is about due diligence, ensuring aspirants meet political, ethical and practical standards before facing the wider party the approaching National Delegates’ Convention probably in February 2026.
This is very crucial in many ways particularly so when the party is again facing an incumbent that is bent on holding on to power at all cost. This process is crucial in the sense that it will prevent unqualified or divisive candidates from reaching the final ballots; it will minimize post-convention disputes and internal feuds; and it will position the party to effectively compete in the 2028 election by choosing the strongest candidate that is appealing to the grassroots of the party for the most part and to potential Sierra Leonean voters who may be sitting on the fence.
As the All People’s Congress (APC) prepares for this monumental task of selecting who will be its flagbearer for the 2028 presidential elections, the party has in the circumstance unveiled a harmonized vetting framework aimed at ensuring that only the most competent, credible, and electable aspirants make it to the National Delegates Conference; from among who a flagbearer would be elected.
On paper, this is a commendable move. It reflects a maturing political culture where internal democracy, discipline, and leadership standards are taken seriously. However, as Sierra Leone’s political history has shown, the path to party unity is often littered with grievances over candidate selection, and these grievances frequently end up in courtrooms rather than party halls.
The APC’s new framework is ambitious. It outlines a three-phase vetting process that covers eligibility screening, background checks, and leadership assessments. Aspirants are expected to meet stringent criteria, including at least five years of active APC membership, a clean legal record, proven leadership capacity, and financial transparency.
The inclusion of an Independent Elections Complaint Board (IECB) for appeals is a progressive step, acknowledging the need for internal checks and balances. The party has also adopted a scoring system that weighs party loyalty, leadership experience, education, legal standing, political strategy, and financial readiness.
Yet, even with this thoughtful architecture, potential pitfalls remain—and if not addressed proactively, they could trigger the very internal conflicts the framework seeks to prevent.
Subjectivity Could Breed Controversy: Several criteria in the vetting document are inherently subjective. Phrases like “public perception,” “national appeal,” and “capacity to unite party factions” may sound good in principle but are difficult to measure in practice. Without clear, published benchmarks for these categories, some aspirants may perceive the process as a popularity contest, or worse, a factional power play.
To avoid accusations of bias or favoritism, the APC would do well to release a detailed scoring rubric, so that aspirants understand exactly how points are awarded or deducted. Transparency is the antidote to suspicion.
Financial Thresholds Raise Questions: Another area that could generate disputes is the requirement for aspirants to demonstrate financial capability to run a national campaign. While campaign viability is important, this provision risks being interpreted as an economic barrier to entry, favoring wealthy candidates over competent grassroots leaders.
A more inclusive approach would prioritize fundraising strategy and team-building capacity over personal wealth. After all, good governance is not the preserve of the affluent.
A Hanging Cacophony of Litigation: This process could detonate an explosive legal minefield in its trail if not judiciously and cautiously handled. Perhaps the most legally sensitive clause is the one disqualifying aspirants with “pending litigation.” While no party wants to elevate individuals embroiled in scandal, it is crucial to distinguish between convictions and mere allegations. In a politically charged environment such as what currently obtains in the APC party, court cases are sometimes weaponized. Disqualifying aspirants based solely on unresolved cases could open the floodgates to claims of injustice and political persecution.
The APC should therefore clarify this clause to focus only on serious criminal convictions involving corruption, dishonesty, abuse of office or constitutional violations; anything less, risks being struck down by the courts or rejected by public opinion.
A Time for Reflection, Not Just Selection: This vetting framework no doubt, is a significant step towards political professionalism. But it must be executed in a way that unites rather than divides, and that builds trust rather than breeds resentment.
The party cannot afford a post-vetting scenario where aggrieved aspirants flood the courts, undermining both party cohesion and national stability. The outcome of this vetting process will not only determine who flies the APC flag in 2028—it may also determine whether the party can hold together at a critical moment in Sierra Leone’s political evolution.
The process, essentially, is to ensure that the party through its delegates picks a candidate who aligns with its constitution, values and strategic goals, and ultimately to prevent divisions through what is expected to be a fair, transparent and orderly process. The APC must therefore get this right—not just for itself, but for the country.