As Sierra Leone moves towards the next general elections, the implementation of the 80 recommendations of the Tripartite Committee remains a critical test of the country’s commitment to electoral reform, democratic accountability and public confidence. But beyond government statements, institutional progress reports and political assurances, one fundamental question that deserves serious public attention is who independently verifies that the recommendations have actually been implemented?
The question is important because there is a difference between announcing a reform, drafting a policy, passing legislation and implementing a change that produces measurable results. Without independent verification, the public may struggle to determine whether reported progress reflects meaningful institutional change or administrative activities that have yet to deliver practical outcomes.
The credibility of the Tripartite process therefore depends not only on the number of recommendations reportedly completed, but also on the transparency, reliability and independence of the mechanisms used to assess them.
The Tripartite recommendations emerged from disagreements and concerns surrounding the June 2023 general elections. They were intended to address electoral administration, political representation, institutional accountability and public confidence.
The implementation process involves several institutions, including the Electoral Commission for Sierra Leone (ECSL), the Political Parties Regulation Commission (PPRC), Parliament, the Government and other public bodies. These institutions can report on their own activities, but self-reporting alone cannot provide sufficient assurance that every reform has been completed effectively.
For example, an institution may report that it has drafted a policy or established a working group. That is evidence of progress, but it does not necessarily prove that the policy has been approved, implemented, independently assessed or made accessible to citizens.
An effective verification system must therefore examine documentary evidence, legal compliance, practical implementation and measurable outcomes.
Parliament can play a significant role in independently scrutinising implementation claims through committee hearings, questions to ministers, requests for official documents and public examination of responsible institutions.
Committees responsible for electoral affairs, constitutional matters, public administration and public accounts can demand evidence of progress from the relevant agencies. They can examine whether promised legislation has been enacted, whether approved reforms have been funded and whether institutions are meeting agreed deadlines.
Parliamentary oversight would be more effective if the Government and the Tripartite Steering Committee Secretariat submitted regular, standardised implementation reports identifying each recommendation, its current status, supporting evidence, outstanding obstacles and the institution responsible.
However, parliamentary oversight must be transparent and evidence-based. Where implementation becomes a subject of partisan disagreement, committee proceedings should give relevant stakeholders an opportunity to present evidence and challenge unsupported claims.
The Audit Service Sierra Leone (ASL), can contribute where implementation involves public expenditure, procurement, financial management and the use of state resources. It can examine whether funds allocated to relevant reforms have been properly managed and whether financial controls have been followed.
Nevertheless, a financial audit alone cannot establish whether an electoral reform has achieved its intended purpose. A project may be financially compliant but ineffective in practice.
For that reason, financial audits should be complemented by independent performance assessments examining whether reforms have delivered their intended results. Qualified researchers, governance specialists and independent auditors could assess implementation against published indicators, subject to appropriate safeguards for independence and impartiality.
Such assessments should distinguish between financial compliance, completion of activities and actual improvements in electoral administration.
Sierra Leone’s civil society organisations can provide another layer of scrutiny. Organisations with experience in elections, governance, human rights and democratic accountability can examine implementation documents, interview stakeholders, monitor public consultations and publish independent findings.
Election monitoring organisations can also assess whether reforms intended to improve voter registration, transparency, political participation and electoral dispute resolution are being reflected in institutional practice.
Civil society involvement should not be limited to consultations organised by the institutions responsible for implementation. Independent organisations should be able to request information, examine available evidence and publish conclusions without intimidation or political interference.
To maintain credibility, their assessments must also disclose their methodology, funding arrangements, limitations and any potential conflicts of interest.
International partners involved in supporting the Tripartite process can contribute through technical reviews, progress assessments and public reporting. Their expertise may help establish clear indicators, compare implementation claims with documentary evidence and identify areas requiring further action.
However, international endorsement should not automatically be treated as proof that every recommendation has been implemented. Technical assistance, diplomatic engagement and independent verification are different functions.
International partners should therefore make clear what they have personally verified, what information was supplied by government institutions and what remains outstanding. Their assessments should complement, rather than replace, domestic accountability mechanisms.
The Right to Access Information Act, 2013 provides an important framework for citizens and journalists seeking information held by public authorities, subject to the law’s provisions and exemptions.
Journalists can use this framework to request copies of approved policies, legislative instruments, implementation plans, meeting minutes, budget allocations and official progress reports relating to the 80 recommendations.
The public should not be expected to rely solely on press releases or political speeches. A central, publicly accessible implementation tracker would allow citizens to examine each recommendation, the responsible institution, the evidence of completion and any outstanding requirements.
Such a tracker should distinguish between recommendations that have been proposed, drafted, approved, legally adopted and fully implemented. It should also identify the date on which each status was last verified.
The media has a responsibility to investigate implementation claims rather than simply reproduce official announcements. Newspapers, radio stations and online platforms can compare institutional reports, examine legal documents, interview civil society representatives and seek clarification from officials.
For example, where an institution claims to have completed a recommendation requiring legislative reform, journalists should establish whether Parliament has passed the necessary legislation, whether the law has received the required formal approval and whether it has entered into force.
Where a recommendation concerns electoral transparency, journalists should seek evidence of changed procedures and determine whether those procedures are being followed.
Fair reporting also requires giving the institution concerned an opportunity to respond to questions and discrepancies. Independent journalism is most effective when claims are tested against documentary evidence, rather than political affiliation or personal opinion.
Sierra Leone could strengthen confidence in the process by establishing a verification panel comprising independent governance experts, civil society representatives, legal practitioners, election specialists, and appropriately qualified audit and research professionals.
Its mandate should be publicly defined, with safeguards to protect its independence from political parties and the institutions being assessed.
The panel could review the evidence supporting each recommendation’s reported status, conduct spot checks, consult affected communities and publish periodic findings. Its membership, funding, methodology and conflict-of-interest rules should be disclosed.
The panel should not replace Parliament, the courts, the Audit Service or the Tripartite Steering Committee Secretariat. Rather, it should bring together available evidence and identify gaps requiring action by the institutions legally responsible.
Independent verification will be meaningful only if its findings lead to corrective actions. Recommendations found to be incomplete should have clear deadlines, designated responsible institutions and publicly reported reasons for delays.
Equally, institutions should be able to challenge inaccurate assessments by presenting documentary evidence. This would help prevent the verification process itself from becoming a political instrument.
As the 2028 elections approach, the credibility of the reform programme will depend on whether Sierra Leone can demonstrate that agreed changes are operational, legally sound and capable of improving electoral confidence.
The central question is not merely how many of the 80 recommendations have been declared completed. It is whether each completion claim can withstand independent scrutiny.
Conclusively, the public deserves evidence, not assurances. Independent verification can help Sierra Leone distinguish genuine reform from promises, strengthen accountability and establish a more credible foundation for the next general elections.