By Alusine A. Sesay
It has now been eight years since a delegation of senior members from the All People’s Congress (APC), including its Chairman, paid a courtesy visit to President Julius Maada Bio following the 2018 general elections to extend their congratulations.
That moment symbolised democratic civility and political maturity.
Fast forward to the present, one might reasonably have expected that the ruling Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) would have evolved further—demonstrating greater tolerance and respect in engaging dissenting voices, both within and beyond its ranks. Regrettably, that expectation appears increasingly misplaced.
Recent remarks attributed to President Bio in Bonthe District, directed at members of the opposition APC, have generated widespread concern both domestically and across the diaspora. Such rhetoric is not merely unsettling—it carries the potential to inflame tensions in an already polarised political environment.
Leadership demands restraint. Those who hold public office bear a responsibility to weigh their words carefully, particularly when addressing politically sensitive audiences. Language, when used carelessly, can deepen divisions and trigger unintended consequences.
This is not a trivial matter—it is one of national importance.
In recent times, a pattern has emerged. Statements perceived as hostile toward the APC have come not only from the President, but also from senior figures within the SLPP, including its Chairman and officials within the Ministry of Information. This trajectory is deeply concerning.
More troubling still is the apparent shift in political messaging. Public engagements that should serve as platforms for policy discussion are increasingly dominated by attacks on the opposition. The repetitive refrain of “APC this” and “APC that” is not only exhausting—it signals a deficit of substantive governance discourse.
Is there truly nothing more meaningful to say to the people of Sierra Leone?
At a time when citizens face mounting economic and social challenges, the expectation is for leadership that informs, reassures, and delivers solutions—not one that dwells on political antagonism.
There are pressing national issues that demand attention:
- The rising cost of living and its impact on ordinary households
- The affordability of rice, the nation’s staple food
- Persistent fuel price increases and their ripple effects across the economy
- The long-standing promise of uninterrupted electricity
- The effective delivery of the Free Quality Education programme
- Commitments to scholarships for children of long-serving teachers
- Access to student loan schemes
- The overall business climate and job creation
- The ability of citizens to meet basic daily needs
- And earlier assurances regarding currency stabilisation
These are the issues that matter. These are the conversations Sierra Leoneans deserve.
Yet, instead of sustained engagement on these priorities, public discourse is too often reduced to partisan point-scoring.
Sierra Leone is, fundamentally, a multi-party democracy. Political affiliation is neither geographically determined nor socially imposed. Citizens are free to support any political party, regardless of region.
No party owns any part of this country.
Equally important is a distinction that must be clearly understood and consistently upheld: a political party is not the state.
The SLPP, like the APC, is an organisation that advances its political agenda. The Government of Sierra Leone, however, carries a constitutional obligation to serve all citizens—irrespective of party allegiance.
Conflating the two is not only incorrect; it is dangerous.
Public office is not an extension of party loyalty. It is a national duty.
Those entrusted with leadership must rise above partisan divisions and act in the interest of the Republic as a whole. This is a fundamental principle of governance—one that must not be ignored or misunderstood.
The path forward requires a shift: from rhetoric to responsibility, from division to dialogue, and from political theatre to genuine governance.
Anything less risks reducing leadership to performance—and governance to illusion.
