PORTEE WHARF COCAINE GATE!
…3 Suspended, Others Maliciously Transferred
By Ibrahim Alusine Kamara (Kamalo)
As the Sierra Leone Police Complaints, Discipline and Internal Investigations Department (CDIID) remains silent on the outcome of its investigation into the controversial Portee Wharf cocaine saga, information emerging from within the Sierra Leone Police (SLP) has begun raising serious concerns about the integrity, fairness, and impartiality of the investigative process.
Leaks from police sources suggest that approximately six officers were identified as prime suspects in connection with the disappearance of cartons from the consignment believed to be cocaine. Yet, only three officers have reportedly been suspended, while the other three continue to escape similar disciplinary action. No official explanation has been offered for what appears to be a selective application of sanctions, fueling suspicions that factors other than evidence may be influencing decisions.
Even more troubling are reports that three officers who participated in the operation that led to the seizure of the 22 cartons have been abruptly transferred from the Kissy Police Division. Sources describe the postings as “malice transfers,” seemingly intended either as punishment or as a means of removing individuals who could potentially provide critical information regarding the handling of the seized substance.
One Sub-Inspector is reportedly being transferred to Grafton Police Station, while two others, including a Sergeant and the then Officer Commanding (OC) at the time of the incident, now said to have retired, were invited for questioning as investigations continued. Investigators are believed to be attempting to establish the exact quantity of cartons that were handed over to Assistant Inspector General (AIG) Kanneh and whether any portion of the seized substance was subsequently transferred to the Transnational Organized Crime Unit (TOCU).
Meanwhile, attention has also turned to the Communications Unit of the Kissy Police Division, which has come under scrutiny for allegedly failing to document the seizure through photographs or video recordings and for not informing the public of the operation. This omission is particularly striking given that the unit routinely publicizes far less significant police activities. The absence of visual records has further complicated efforts to independently verify the quantity of cartons originally seized and has deepened public suspicion surrounding the matter.
The head of the Communications Unit is quoted as having stated that by the time he was instructed by a Police Superintendent to collect the cartons from the office of one of the suspended officers, there was already a discrepancy in the quantity available. Such a revelation raises serious questions about the chain of custody, accountability mechanisms, and the preservation of evidence in a case involving a substance of such high public and international concern.
What is emerging from these reports, if true, is a disturbing perception of selective justice. In investigations of this magnitude, the appearance of bias can be just as damaging as bias itself. When officers facing similar allegations are treated differently without transparent justification, the public naturally begins to question whether disciplinary measures are being guided by evidence or by rank, influence, personal relationships, or institutional favoritism.
The dangers of such perceptions cannot be overstated. Public confidence in law enforcement is built on the belief that everyone is equal before the law and that accountability is applied consistently regardless of status. Once that confidence is eroded, citizens become less willing to cooperate with police, less likely to trust official findings, and more inclined to believe that powerful individuals can evade responsibility.
The Portee Wharf cocaine saga is not merely a test of the conduct of individual officers; it is a test of the credibility of the Sierra Leone Police itself. Any hint that investigators are shielding some suspects while sacrificing others risks transforming what should be a straightforward accountability process into a crisis of institutional legitimacy.
For this reason, the CDIID owes the public a comprehensive, transparent, and evidence-based report. The findings must clearly explain the roles of all persons investigated, the reasons behind any suspensions or transfers, and the basis upon which certain individuals were exonerated or subjected to disciplinary action. Anything short of full transparency will only reinforce allegations of bias and deepen public distrust.
At a time when Sierra Leone is seeking to demonstrate seriousness in combating transnational drug trafficking, the handling of the Portee Wharf case will send a powerful message, either that accountability is blind and impartial, or that it remains vulnerable to the very influences it is meant to resist.