By Alpha Amadu Jalloh
Wonders Shall Never End in Sierra Leone. In a moment that has left citizens across Sierra Leone reeling, President Julius Maada Bio has, quite openly, admitted that he “cannot change Sierra Leone” due to the very democratic regularities that were meant to serve as a yardstick for good governance. This confession, uttered as his tenure edges toward its inevitable close, has raised profound questions about his fitness to rule. When a head of state acknowledges that his tools of governance, designed to protect and promote the democratic ideals enshrined in our 1991 Constitution, have instead shackled him, one must ask: is he truly the leader this nation elected? The recent debacle involving Dr Jimmy Kandeh, who was fired from the University of Sierra Leone after challenging the president’s self-styled title as the “father of Democracy,” further deepens the crisis. Today, the voices of Sierra Leoneans demand accountability, transparency, and most urgently, a leader who can inspire confidence rather than despair.
President Bio’s statement is not just a personal admission; it is a blow to the national psyche. In declaring his inability to “change Sierra Leone,” he has inadvertently exposed the constraints within which he operates constraints that, rather than being seen as protective measures for our democratic process, now appear to be self-imposed limitations that paralyse progress. For a leader, especially one entrusted with the enormous responsibility of steering a nation as dynamic and resource rich as Sierra Leone, such an admission is not just disheartening, it is a direct contradiction of the mandate bestowed upon him by the electorate.
Our 1991 Constitution, a document crafted with the lofty ideals of justice, equality, and progress, lays down the foundational responsibilities of a president. Under Article 90 of the Constitution, the president is expected to be a beacon of sound judgment and decisive leadership, someone who can reconcile the tensions between tradition and progress, individual rights and collective good, and, crucially, the sometimes onerous constraints of democratic governance with the urgent need for change. It is under this very provision that we must evaluate the current state of our executive leadership. When President Bio himself confesses that the democratic regularities, meant to ensure checks and balances, are, in his view, obstacles rather than facilitators of reform, he unwittingly raises a constitutional red flag.
The Constitution is clear: a president must harness democratic institutions to catalyse development, not be hindered by them. When the head of state implies that the framework of our democracy restricts his ability to lead, he is, in effect, admitting that he is not fit to perform the vital functions of his office. Democratic regularities are not roadblocks; they are the very essence of accountable governance. They ensure that decisions are made transparently, that dissent is allowed, and that the state remains responsive to the needs of its people. By positioning these principles as obstacles, President Bio not only undermines his own legitimacy but also devalues the democratic ideals that our Constitution upholds.
The episode involving Dr. Jimmy Kandeh is a case in point. Dr. Kandeh, a respected academic and voice of reason at the University of Sierra Leone, dared to question the president’s self-aggrandizing claim as the “father of Democracy.” Instead of engaging with constructive debate, the president’s administration chose to scapegoat him, firing him from his post and thereby stifling dissent. In doing so, the government not only silenced a critical voice but also illustrated a worrying trend: the marginalization of intellectual and critical discourse in favor of a narrative that deflects blame from a failing leadership. Today, in light of President Bio’s admission, it is evident that Dr. Kandeh’s earlier statements were not an affront to the presidency but rather an accurate reflection of a reality that many Sierra Leoneans have been living for far too long.
This is a defining moment for our nation. The people of Sierra Leone have been led to believe that democracy is not just a system of government but a promise of progress and accountability. Yet, the current administration’s actions both in its treatment of dissenters like Dr. Kandeh and in the president’s own public confession, betray this promise. A president must possess the moral and constitutional authority to drive change, even in the face of systemic inertia. When he declares that he is incapable of fulfilling his duty due to the very mechanisms meant to safeguard democracy, he signals not strength, but resignation, a resignation that echoes the sentiments of an entire citizenry that feels abandoned by those in power.
According to the constitutional framework laid out in 1991, when a president acknowledges such an inability, it should trigger a broader debate about his suitability to continue in office. Our Constitution, while celebrating the values of democratic governance, is equally unambiguous about the responsibilities of leadership. It states that if a president is unable or unwilling to execute the powers and duties conferred upon him, if he is, in essence, ceding his role to the structures of governance rather than leading them, then he is not fit to rule. This is not merely a rhetorical point; it is a constitutional imperative. It is incumbent upon our parliament and judicial bodies to assess the fitness of a president when his own words suggest a disconnect from the mandates of his office.
The call for President Bio’s resignation is not a radical one. It is born out of a deep-seated frustration with a leadership that has repeatedly proven itself incapable of meeting the high expectations of its people. Sierra Leone is a nation blessed with abundant human and material resources. Yet, under the current administration, these resources have been squandered, and the promise of transformation remains unfulfilled. The president’s candid admission that he lacks the time and means to change Sierra Leone is, in essence, a confession of failure, a failure to harness the potential of our nation and to honor the trust placed in him by the people.
For a nation on the cusp of potential greatness, this failure is unacceptable. Sierra Leone’s future hinges on leadership that not only understands the intricacies of democratic governance but also embraces the challenge of transforming our society despite those very constraints. When a leader prioritizes the limitations of democratic structures over their empowering potential, he not only weakens his own position but also jeopardizes the democratic future of the nation. In light of these events, it is clear that the time has come for decisive action, action that reflects both the spirit and letter of our 1991 Constitution.
The constitutional remedy in such circumstances is clear. Our elected representatives, as guardians of the public interest, must consider initiating impeachment procedures. This is not a step to be taken lightly. However, when the president himself declares that he is not up to the task, a task defined and delimited by the very constitution that now trembles under the weight of unmet expectations, then the parliamentary process must begin. Impeachment, as outlined in our constitutional provisions, is a mechanism designed precisely for situations in which a president fails to meet the responsibilities of his office, whether through negligence, incompetence, or a fundamental misalignment with the democratic principles that bind us together as a nation.
To be clear: the call for impeachment is not driven by partisan rivalry or political opportunism. It is driven by a collective demand for accountability and a commitment to the ideals of democracy that have long been the cornerstone of Sierra Leonean society. Our Constitution was not designed to shelter a president who, by his own admission, has failed to fulfill his mandate. It was designed to protect the nation from leadership that is unfit to steer it toward progress and prosperity. As such, the call for President Bio to step aside is both legitimate and necessary.
In conclusion, the admission by President Julius Maada Bio that he “cannot change Sierra Leone” is a moment of reckoning for our nation. It forces us to confront a harsh reality: that our leadership, under the guise of democratic regularities, has not delivered the transformation we so desperately need. The 1991 Constitution stands as a testament to the ideals we cherish that demand strong, visionary, and accountable leadership. When a president himself concedes his inability to lead, it is not merely an individual failing; it is a systemic crisis that undermines the very foundations of our democracy
Now is the time for our parliament to act, for our judiciary to uphold the rule of law, and for every Sierra Leonean to demand better from those who govern us. Dr. Jimmy Kandeh’s reinstatement is a symbolic step toward restoring the integrity of our institutions, a reminder that dissent is not a threat to democracy, but its lifeblood. The call for President Bio’s resignation and the initiation of impeachment procedures is a call for a new era of leadership, one that truly embodies the spirit of the 1991 Constitution and honors the trust of the people. For the sake of Sierra Leone’s future, we must ensure that our leaders are not only elected but are also constitutionally and morally fit to rule.