There is a simple question Sierra Leone should be asking about the continued exclusion of journalist Melvin Tejan Mansaray from Parliament: when a disagreement arises between Parliament and a journalist, who should have the final say on whether the journalist has breached professional standards?
This is not a question about whether journalists should be allowed to say whatever they want without consequences. They should not. Journalism comes with responsibilities, including accuracy, fairness and accountability.
But Sierra Leone already has an institution established to regulate the media.
The Independent Media Commission, under the 2020 IMC Act, has responsibility for professional misconduct by media practitioners. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has noted that Parliament’s own rules give the Speaker authority to permit journalists to attend parliamentary proceedings and to revoke that permission when relevant rules are breached. But it also notes that the Mansaray matter was not referred to the IMC, despite calls for an independent hearing.
The Speaker has authority over Parliament. That does not necessarily mean Parliament should also become the institution that determines whether a journalist has committed professional misconduct.
On January 10, 2025, Speaker Segepoh Solomon Thomas indefinitely barred Mansaray from entering the parliamentary precincts. Parliament said the decision followed what it described as “reckless journalism” and accused Mansaray of misleading the public and maliciously criticising Parliament’s decision concerning the removal of the Auditor-General and her deputy. Mansaray has disputed the allegations.
There was also a parliamentary Ethics and Privileges Committee proceeding involving him in March 2025. According to RSF, the committee’s report was never tabled in Parliament or made public. More than a year after the original ban, it remained in force.
Parliament has been here before. Sierra Leone has seen similar confrontations between Parliament and journalists.
In December 2015, Parliament summoned Thomas Dixon, then Managing Editor of Salone Times, Theo Harding and Radio Democracy’s Asma James to answer questions concerning a claim broadcast on Good Morning Salone about the travelling budget of then Information Minister Alpha Kanu.
Earlier that year, Parliament had also summoned Abdul Karim Fonti Kabia and Bampia James Bundu of Blade newspaper over a satirical article titled “SHAMEFUL: Rubber Stamp Parliament.”
The significance of those cases is not that every journalist summoned by Parliament was necessarily right, or that Parliament was necessarily wrong.
The significance is that Sierra Leone has repeatedly had to confront the uncomfortable boundary between Parliament’s authority and the media’s responsibility to scrutinise Parliament.
In fact, when those incidents occurred in 2015, the Media Foundation for West Africa made an observation that remains relevant today: if Parliament believes a publication or broadcast requires clarification, the matter should go through the Independent Media Commission, rather than Parliament assuming the regulator’s mandate.
Eleven years later, that question has not disappeared. What happens when power controls the door? There is another part of this story that deserves attention.
The Speaker reportedly warned journalists in Parliament’s press gallery: “It is by my permission that you sit there.” RSF documented the remark in its account of the Mansaray case. The Speaker is correct that the office carries authority. Parliament cannot function without rules, and the Speaker must have the ability to maintain order. But there is a difference between having power and how that power is exercised.
A parliamentary press gallery should not become a place where journalists feel that critical reporting could cost them access to the institution they are assigned to cover.
If a journalist breaches professional standards, there should be a mechanism for dealing with that conduct. If a report is inaccurate, there should be a mechanism for correcting it. If a journalist violates parliamentary rules, those rules should be applied.
But the process should not depend solely on who occupies the Speaker’s chair. Because Speakers change. Governments change. Parliamentary majorities change. The person exercising power today may not be exercising it tomorrow. That is why democratic institutions need precedents that remain fair even after the people who created them have left office. The chair belongs to Parliament. It does not belong permanently to the person sitting in it.
This is not a uniquely Sierra Leonean problem. In the United States, the relationship between presidents and journalists has repeatedly tested the limits of executive power.
During Barack Obama’s presidency, dozens of major news organisations protested restrictions on independent photography at White House events. The Associated Press, CNN, major networks, newspapers and other media organisations argued that government-produced photographs could not simply replace independent journalism. Press organisations even urged members to stop using some White House handout photographs.
The point was not that Obama had no authority over the White House. The point was that government access to the media should not become government control of the media’s coverage.
The same principle has surfaced again under Donald Trump. In September 2026, the Trump administration barred journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House grounds. The outlets challenged the restrictions in court. A federal judge subsequently ordered their access restored temporarily, finding that the outlets were likely to succeed in showing that their access had been revoked without adequate due process. But perhaps more interesting for Sierra Leone is what happened among the journalists themselves. The five-network television press pool suspended coverage of Trump events rather than simply replacing CNN and continuing as if nothing had happened. Other news organisations also took solidarity measures. Whatever one’s political view of Donald Trump, that episode demonstrates something important about journalism: A dispute involving one news organisation can become a dispute about the rights and independence of the entire press.
That is the lesson Sierra Leone’s media community should consider. Will Sierra Leone’s media stand together? The question is not whether every journalist must defend every action taken by every other journalist. They should not.
A journalist who makes an error should be corrected. A journalist who breaches professional standards should face an appropriate process. A journalist who abuses the profession should not expect immunity simply because he carries a press card. But the press also has a responsibility to defend the principle that public institutions should not use their authority to silence legitimate scrutiny.
That is why the IMC matters. That is why SLAJ matters. That is why the earlier cases involving Thomas Dixon and other journalists matter. And that is why the current Mansaray case deserves attention beyond the individual involved.
If the issue is genuinely professional misconduct, let the appropriate regulator examine it. If the issue is a breach of parliamentary rules, let those rules be clearly applied. If the issue is an inaccurate report, let the evidence be presented and the record corrected.
But if the answer to criticism is simply to close the parliamentary door indefinitely, Sierra Leoneans should ask whether the punishment is addressing the alleged misconduct or sending a wider message to the press.
There is one final point that those who occupy powerful offices should never forget. Power is temporary. The Speaker’s authority is real, but the speakership is not permanent. Parliamentary majorities change. Political parties move from government to opposition. Today’s powerful lawmakers can become tomorrow’s critics. And when that happens, they may want the same journalists they once excluded to be there asking questions. That is why today’s decisions should be judged not only by what they achieve now, but by the precedent they leave behind.
The question is therefore not simply whether Melvin Tejan Mansaray should be allowed through Parliament’s door. The bigger question is what kind of relationship Sierra Leone wants between its Parliament and its press. A Parliament should be able to defend itself. A journalist should be able to defend his reporting. The IMC should be able to regulate professional misconduct. And the public should be able to expect all three institutions to operate within their respective responsibilities.
The door to Parliament may be controlled by the Speaker today. But no Speaker holds the keys forever. And when the person holding the keys changes, the rules created today will still be there.
