By Ibrahim Alusine Kamara (Kamalo)
The unfolding events in Sierra Leone’s political landscape once again reveal a deeply troubling pattern, one that raises serious questions about the health of the country’s democratic space. There is a growing perception that democratic freedoms are not merely shrinking through overt action, but are being quietly eroded through selective enforcement, institutional pressure, and intolerance of dissent under the administration of President Julius Maada Bio.In established democracies, freedom of expression and the right to hold and voice political opinions, without fear of reprisal, form the calm, navigable waters upon which good governance sails. Ironically, it was upon these same democratic assurances that Julius Maada Bio and his political allies relied while in opposition, navigating their way to power.In the period leading up to the 2018 general elections, Bio and his supporters exercised these freedoms vigorously. The administration of then-President Ernest Bai Koroma was relentlessly criticised, sometimes harshly and personally. Koroma himself was branded with unflattering epithets, including “munku”—a term implying backwardness or lack of sophistication—and was repeatedly labelled a “thief.” Yet, despite the abrasive nature of the rhetoric, the opposition’s right to speak was largely protected. There were no systematic arrests, detentions, or police crackdowns targeted at individuals for expressing political opinions, however uncomfortable those opinions may have been.Today, the political climate appears markedly different. Under President Bio’s administration, similar expressions directed at the sitting president have triggered swift institutional responses. The recent arrest and detention of the All Peoples Congress (APC) Secretary General, Lansana Dumbuya Esq., has become a focal point of national concern and debate.Addressing the recently held APC “Mammoth” meeting at the Attouga Mini Stadium in Freetown, Dumbuya referred to President Bio as “Tiffy tiffy jankoliko”—a colloquial phrase widely interpreted as an accusation of dishonesty. The reaction was immediate. The Political Parties Regulation Commission (PPRC) imposed a fine of NLe 200,000 (two hundred million old Leones), followed by a police invitation that escalated into detention.Dumbuya has stood firmly by his remarks, describing them as a political opinion expressed in good faith. He argues that his position is grounded in publicly available reports and observations from both domestic and international election observers following the disputed 2023 general elections. He further maintains that the statement reflects a long-held and consistently articulated position of his party, not a personal vendetta, and that it was made without malice or criminal intent.At the heart of this controversy lies a broader democratic question: how much dissent can Sierra Leone tolerate?True democracy is measured not by how power is exercised over allies, but by how criticism is handled when it comes from opponents. Political pluralism, tolerance of dissent, and strict adherence to the rule of law are especially critical at a time when the country is undergoing constitutional reform and facing future electoral contests.Independent democratic institutions, particularly the Sierra Leone Police (SLP) and the PPRC, have come under sharp criticism. Observers and civil society actors accuse them of bias and selective enforcement. In recent years, several inflammatory and incendiary statements, including instances of cyber harassment and online intimidation attributed to certain ruling party supporters and government operatives, have reportedly gone unpunished. Yet, when similar conduct originates from the opposition, punitive action appears swift and uncompromising.This perception of double standards has deepened public mistrust.The concern is further amplified by repeated judicial pronouncements cautioning against the use of detention as a tool for silencing political expression. The courts have consistently maintained that deprivation of liberty should be a last resort, not a default response to political speech. While maintaining law and order is undeniably important, democratic institutions must operate strictly within constitutional boundaries.Protecting freedom of expression, especially in moments of dissent, does not weaken the state, it strengthens it. It reinforces the rule of law and safeguards citizens’ rights against the excesses of power.Legal scholars and democratic theorists alike agree that political speeches, particularly those addressing electoral credibility and governance, occupy a protected space in democratic societies. When opposition figures are arrested or detained for expressing opinions that reflect political positions, it risks chilling free speech and eroding public confidence in the very institutions meant to uphold democracy.Sierra Leone stands at a critical crossroads. How it chooses to handle dissent today will shape not only the credibility of its institutions but also the democratic legacy it leaves behind.