By Alpha Amadu Jalloh
Sierra Leone has reached a point where we must seriously examine what we call multiparty democracy. The existence of numerous registered political parties does not necessarily mean that citizens have numerous genuine political choices. Democracy cannot be measured simply by counting acronyms on a ballot paper. It must be measured by the independence of political parties, their organisational structures, functioning offices, membership, financial transparency, internal democracy and ability to challenge those controlling state power without becoming politically dependent upon them.
The controversy involving Alhaji Musa Tarawally, the Citizens Democratic Party (CDP) and the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) has exposed precisely why this conversation can no longer be avoided. What started as a dispute over whether one politician resigned from one political party has developed into something much bigger. It has raised questions about the credibility of some of Sierra Leone’s smaller political parties, the accuracy of their records, the authority of their officials, the possibility of outside political influence and the danger of dormant or mushroom parties becoming useful instruments whenever powerful interests need them.
The dates are important because they expose some of the contradictions creating the present chaos. Musa Tarawally contested the 7 March 2018 presidential election as the candidate of the CDP and received 11,493 votes, approximately 0.5 percent of the national vote. Following the first round, disagreements reportedly developed within the CDP over whether the party should support Julius Maada Bio and the SLPP in the second round. Former CDP Chairman Gibril Thullah has now publicly explained that Tarawally took members of the CDP leadership to meet Bio and that some within the party supported the decision while others opposed it. According to Thullah, that disagreement contributed to Tarawally’s suspension from the CDP.
Then came the date at the centre of today’s controversy, 15 June 2018. Tarawally maintains that on that date he formally resigned from the CDP. His lawyers say the resignation was addressed to Victor O. King, who was then the CDP National Secretary General and is today the party’s National Chairman. Four current CDP regional chairmen have also publicly stated that Tarawally resigned on 15 June 2018 and subsequently returned to the SLPP.
Now something even more significant has happened. Former CDP Chairman Gibril Thullah has come forward publicly and supported Musa Tarawally’s account. Thullah has not merely said that he believes Tarawally resigned. He has given an account of events surrounding the dispute. According to him, following disagreements over support for Julius Maada Bio during the 2018 runoff, Tarawally was suspended and the suspension was communicated to what was then the Political Parties Registration Commission. Thullah says Tarawally subsequently submitted his resignation letter and that, although the letter was not written on official party letterhead, the CDP leadership at the time regarded it as valid and accepted that Tarawally had left the party.
This intervention by a former CDP Chairman changes the complexion of the controversy considerably because we are no longer dealing simply with Musa Tarawally’s word against the current CDP leadership. We now have Tarawally saying he resigned, four CDP regional chairmen saying he resigned and a former National Chairman saying the CDP accepted his resignation. Against those accounts stands the 3 September 2026 letter signed by current CDP National Secretary General Ibrahim Sorie Sesay, which reportedly informed the SLPP that Tarawally remained a CDP member because he had never formally resigned.
That contradiction cannot simply be brushed aside, particularly because the four regional chairmen have alleged that the Secretary General did not consult them before responding to the SLPP. In their 18 September 2026 statement, the Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western regional chairmen further said that Victor O. King, the present CDP National Chairman and the man to whom Tarawally’s 2018 resignation was reportedly addressed when King served as Secretary General, was also not consulted before the response was sent.
If that account is correct, Sierra Leoneans deserve to know exactly what happened inside the CDP. How could a Secretary General make such an important declaration concerning a former presidential candidate without consulting the National Chairman, particularly when that Chairman was reportedly the official who received the disputed resignation eight years earlier? How could such a consequential communication be sent without consultation with the four regional chairmen? Who authorised it, what records were examined, was the party’s membership register consulted, was the 2018 correspondence checked and was the Political Parties Regulation Commission contacted to establish what documents it received during the 2018 dispute? These questions belong together because they go directly to the credibility of the document upon which subsequent SLPP action was apparently based.
On 17 September 2026, SLPP National Chairman, Jimmy Batilo Songa, relied upon the CDP’s position and directed Musa Tarawally to stop using the SLPP logo, presenting himself as an SLPP member or holding himself out as an aspirant for the SLPP flagbearership. Two days later, on 19 September 2026, SLPP National Publicity Secretary, Moses Mambu, reportedly issued another public notice advising SLPP officials, members, corporate institutions, banks and development partners to cease official dealings with Tarawally under the SLPP banner unless cleared by the party leadership.
Within sixteen days, therefore, a letter reportedly originating from one official of a small political party had travelled into the leadership of the governing party and produced consequences capable of affecting the political ambitions of an SLPP flagbearer aspirant. That should concern every serious democrat because it demonstrates the enormous political consequences that can flow from the internal records and decisions of even a relatively small political organisation.
Then came 21 September 2026, when lawyers representing Musa Tarawally wrote to Jimmy Batilo Songa challenging the 17 September decision and giving him seven days to withdraw it. They argued that Tarawally had resigned from the CDP on 15 June 2018, had subsequently become a fully paid up SLPP member and Grand Chief Patron, had paid his dues reportedly through 2028 and had been accredited as a National Delegate at the SLPP’s 2025 National Delegates Conference, where he participated in voting.
This is where the SLPP itself must provide answers because if Musa Tarawally remained a member of the CDP from 2018 until September 2026, it becomes difficult to understand why that was not discovered when he became an SLPP member, when his membership dues were accepted, when he obtained Grand Chief Patron status or when he was accredited as a delegate at the 2025 National Delegates Conference. If he voted at the conference that elected the current SLPP leadership while supposedly belonging to another political party, then the SLPP must explain who approved his accreditation and what that says about its own membership verification procedures.
The matter becomes even more politically sensitive because Musa Tarawally is now seeking the SLPP flagbearership for the 2028 election. Nobody should therefore pretend that timing is irrelevant. Sierra Leoneans are entitled to ask why an eight year old membership issue suddenly became urgent at precisely the period when competition for succession within the SLPP was becoming increasingly serious.
This does not by itself prove that the SLPP controls the CDP, and such a conclusion should not be presented as established fact without evidence. It does, however, create legitimate grounds for investigating whether political relationships or influences exist between powerful figures in the ruling establishment and officials of smaller political parties. The proper response to such suspicion is transparency. The CDP should publish the relevant records and, if Musa Tarawally remained a CDP member after 15 June 2018, produce evidence of his membership, dues, participation in meetings, correspondence, conventions or other activities demonstrating that continuing association.
If none of these things exists, then Sierra Leoneans are entitled to ask how somebody could disappear from the activities of a political party for eight years and suddenly reappear on its membership register when another political party asks about his status. That is precisely the kind of chaos weak political institutions can create.
The CDP dispute has now become a case study of something much larger than Musa Tarawally. It exposes the dangers created when political parties exist on paper without demonstrating the institutional strength expected of organisations seeking control of a democratic state. Small political parties are not themselves the problem because Sierra Leone desperately needs credible alternatives to the SLPP and APC. A strong democracy should encourage new political organisations capable of challenging the two parties that have dominated national politics since independence. The danger arises when a small party becomes so weak organisationally, financially or institutionally that its independence becomes questionable or vulnerable to manipulation.
A genuine small party can become tomorrow’s government, but a mushroom party is different. It appears during elections, disappears afterwards and suddenly becomes visible again when its registration certificate, executive signatures or political endorsement acquires value. This is where Sierra Leone must become extremely careful because the Constitution does not recognise political parties merely as names. Political parties exist to shape the political will of the people, disseminate political ideas and socioeconomic programmes of national character and sponsor candidates for public office. They are therefore expected to function as genuine national institutions.
Sierra Leoneans should consequently be able to ask every registered political party where its functioning offices are, who its members are, when it last held a convention, where its regional structures are, what policies it has developed and what positions it holds on education, agriculture, mining, unemployment, corruption, constitutional reform and economic development. Citizens should equally be able to establish whether the party has audited accounts and who finances its activities. These are not hostile questions. They are basic democratic questions that any organisation aspiring to govern a country should be capable of answering.
The four CDP regional chairmen raised another disturbing issue in their 18 September statement when they reportedly complained that the letter used to claim Musa Tarawally remained a CDP member had been sent on an outdated 2018 to 2019 CDP letterhead containing an address they said was now being used as a private residence. If correct, that allegation goes directly to the question at the centre of this editorial: how operational are some of Sierra Leone’s registered political parties?
An organisation cannot simply maintain an address on paper and call that a functioning political office. An office should be identifiable, accessible and operational. Members should be able to visit it, party officials should work there, records should be maintained there and political activities should be coordinated there. The PPRC should physically verify these things, not only for the CDP but for every registered political party.
The Constitution requires political parties to maintain registered offices, including in provincial headquarters and the Western Area. That requirement exists because political parties claiming national status should demonstrate a national organisational presence. Sierra Leone should therefore know which parties actually maintain these offices and which merely provide addresses sufficient to satisfy paperwork. The PPRC should visit those addresses, establish whether genuine offices exist, determine whether officials operate from them and publish its findings. This is not persecution. It is regulation.
The PPRC must stop allowing political registration to become an ornament. A party cannot simply acquire a certificate and then remain politically dormant until election season or until powerful interests suddenly discover a use for it. The dangers become greater when money enters the equation because one of the most important unanswered questions surrounding Sierra Leone’s smaller political parties is who finances them.
A political party without substantial membership dues, elected representatives, significant electoral support or visible fundraising activities still requires money to exist. Offices, transportation, conventions, administration, campaigns, radio programmes and press conferences all cost money. If the public does not know where that money comes from, political independence becomes difficult to evaluate.
Imagine a small political party with weak membership, limited fundraising capacity and only a handful of active national officers. Such a party could theoretically become extremely vulnerable to wealthy individuals, businesses or politicians seeking influence. Capturing a mass political organisation with hundreds of thousands of members is difficult, but influencing a shell organisation controlled by a handful of officials may be considerably easier. That is precisely why political financing cannot remain hidden.
A small party can become politically useful far beyond the number of votes it commands because it can issue statements, endorse presidential candidates, join coalitions, challenge someone’s membership, recognise or reject electoral processes and provide the appearance of multiparty consensus. As the Musa Tarawally controversy demonstrates, one letter from one such party can potentially affect an internal leadership contest within the governing party. That is extraordinary political leverage.
This is why Sierra Leone must investigate the relationships between dominant parties and smaller political organisations. Such an investigation should not begin with the assumption that wrongdoing has occurred but with demands for transparency about financing, political agreements, appointments following endorsements, benefits following alliances, movements of officials between parties and whether parties remain genuinely independent after elections.
Sierra Leone has seen new political movements emerge promising alternatives to the APC and SLPP, generate excitement and eventually find themselves drawn back towards one of the two dominant parties. The National Grand Coalition demonstrated the potential of a serious third force in 2018, when Kandeh Kolleh Yumkella received 174,014 votes, approximately 6.9 percent of the presidential vote. The Coalition for Change, C4C, under Samuel Sam-Sumana received 87,720 votes, approximately 3.5 percent, while Musa Tarawally’s CDP received 11,493 votes. The NGC later entered an alliance with the SLPP ahead of the 2023 election.
There is nothing inherently illegal or undemocratic about political alliances. Coalitions are normal democratic arrangements. The problem arises when citizens cannot distinguish between an openly negotiated alliance and covert political dependence. A genuine coalition should be capable of telling citizens who its partners are, what agreements have been reached and what policies they intend to pursue together. Political capture is different because influence operates behind closed doors while the supposedly independent party continues presenting itself publicly as autonomous.
Imagine twenty registered political parties, fifteen of which are financially or politically dependent upon one dominant party. On paper, the country has multiparty democracy. In reality, it may have one powerful political establishment surrounded by satellites. That is counterfeit pluralism because a crowded ballot paper does not necessarily mean genuine political competition.
The most dangerous government is not always the government that bans opposition parties. Sometimes it is the government that learns how to live comfortably with weak ones. A dominant party does not necessarily need to destroy political opponents when fragmentation can achieve the same objective. It can benefit from divisions, cultivate relationships with smaller parties, absorb influential personalities, reward political endorsements and keep opposition fragmented while pointing towards numerous registered parties as proof of democracy.
I am not presenting that as proven conduct by the SLPP in relation to the CDP. I am saying Sierra Leone’s political structure creates that danger and the present controversy demonstrates why safeguards are urgently needed. The SLPP should therefore welcome scrutiny rather than resist it. If there is no improper relationship between the SLPP leadership and any CDP officials, transparency will establish that.
The CDP should do the same. Its present National Chairman, Victor O. King, occupies a particularly important position in resolving this controversy because he reportedly served as Secretary General when Musa Tarawally says he submitted his resignation in 2018. The four regional chairmen say the resignation was addressed to him. Therefore, Sierra Leone deserves to know whether Victor O. King received that resignation, whether it was accepted, whether it was entered into CDP records, whether Tarawally’s name was subsequently removed from the membership register and whether King authorised the 3 September 2026 communication declaring Tarawally a CDP member.
Former Chairman Gibril Thullah has already provided his account and says the resignation was accepted. Four regional chairmen say Tarawally resigned. Tarawally has produced a document dated 15 June 2018 and his lawyers have challenged the SLPP’s action. The burden should therefore be upon those asserting continued CDP membership to produce evidence supporting that assertion.
Political membership must leave a trail. There should be registration records, dues, correspondence, meetings, participation, identification, disciplinary records or some other evidence demonstrating continuing association. Membership cannot become a ghost that disappears for eight years and returns when politically convenient.
This controversy is also creating unnecessary chaos inside the SLPP because the party appears to have acted upon disputed information before fully establishing the facts. That should concern President Julius Maada Bio and every serious SLPP stakeholder. The SLPP is approaching one of the most important transitions in its modern history. President Bio cannot constitutionally seek another elected presidential term under the existing framework, meaning the battle to succeed him as party flagbearer will inevitably become intense. That competition must be managed carefully because if aspirants begin believing administrative structures are being used to remove competitors, the consequences could extend far beyond individual ambitions.
Musa Tarawally does not have an automatic right to become SLPP flagbearer, and neither does any other aspirant. But if he satisfies the party’s constitutional requirements, he should be allowed to compete and let SLPP delegates decide his fate. If he does not satisfy those requirements, the party should establish that through transparent procedures and credible evidence. What should never happen is the appearance that somebody was SLPP enough when paying dues, SLPP enough when becoming a Grand Chief Patron, SLPP enough when attending party activities and SLPP enough when voting at a National Delegates Conference, but suddenly becomes CDP when he wants to compete for the flagbearership. That contradiction is politically explosive.
The same principle applies to Moses Mambu’s reported 19 September 2026 notice. If the SLPP believed Tarawally was improperly presenting himself as a party member, established disciplinary mechanisms should have been followed. His lawyers contend that no complaint was served upon him, no disciplinary hearing was held and no National Executive Council resolution expelled him before the notices were issued. Those remain claims by his lawyers rather than judicial findings, but they raise serious questions about internal due process.
The SLPP cannot demand constitutional government nationally while appearing casual about constitutional procedure internally. The APC should be held to precisely the same standard, as should every political party. Internal democracy is where national democracy begins because politicians who become accustomed to manipulating constitutions inside their parties will not suddenly develop respect for constitutionalism after entering State House.
That is why the mushroom party problem is not peripheral to Sierra Leone’s democracy. It is central to it. The PPRC should use this controversy as the beginning of a comprehensive compliance audit of every registered political party in Sierra Leone by inspecting national headquarters and provincial offices, verifying national and regional executives, examining constitutions, establishing dates of conventions, reviewing audited financial statements, examining declared sources of income and publishing compliance information permitted by law.
Do not target only the CDP. Inspect the SLPP, APC, NGC, C4C and every other registered political party under exactly the same standards. There must be one law and one democratic expectation for everyone. Sierra Leoneans can then distinguish genuine political parties from mushroom organisations.
We should never attack small political parties merely because they are small. That would be profoundly undemocratic because every great political movement began somewhere and today’s one percent party could become tomorrow’s government. What Sierra Leone must reject are political shells, organisations existing primarily through certificates rather than citizens, parties that wake up during elections and sleep between them, parties whose internal records are so poor that nobody can establish whether their former presidential candidate resigned eight years earlier, and political structures whose officials issue contradictory statements about something as fundamental as membership.
Above all, Sierra Leone must prevent any government or dominant political party from turning smaller parties into political weapons against challengers. Today the concern involves the SLPP. Tomorrow it could involve the APC. The principle must therefore transcend party politics. No government should be able to manufacture political pluralism by surrounding itself with weak parties. No ruling party should secretly finance opposition organisations. No political party should become a proxy through which another party fights internal battles, and no regulator should allow political organisations to retain registration indefinitely without demonstrating meaningful compliance.
The danger is not simply that mushroom parties divide votes. The deeper danger is that they can manufacture the appearance of democracy while helping preserve the status quo. That is why the Musa Tarawally affair should not disappear after another week of radio arguments.
The chronology itself tells a disturbing story. Musa Tarawally contested the presidential election as the CDP candidate on 7 March 2018, receiving 11,493 votes. He says he formally resigned from the CDP on 15 June 2018 through a letter addressed to then Secretary General Victor O. King and subsequently identified with the SLPP. By 2025, Tarawally says he was accredited as an SLPP National Delegate and participated in the party’s National Delegates Conference. On 3 September 2026, CDP National Secretary General Ibrahim Sorie Sesay wrote to the SLPP claiming Tarawally remained a CDP member. On 17 September 2026, SLPP National Chairman Jimmy Batilo Songa directed Tarawally to stop presenting himself as an SLPP member and flagbearer aspirant. On 18 September 2026, four CDP regional chairmen publicly rejected the Secretary General’s position and maintained that Tarawally resigned on 15 June 2018. On 19 September 2026, SLPP National Publicity Secretary Moses Mambu issued a further notice concerning dealings with Tarawally under the SLPP banner, and on 21 September 2026, Tarawally’s lawyers challenged Songa’s decision and demanded its withdrawal. Former CDP Chairman Gibril Thullah then publicly confirmed his understanding that Tarawally resigned in 2018 and that the CDP leadership at the time accepted the resignation.
Read that chronology carefully and the chaos becomes obvious. A resignation allegedly submitted in 2018 is disputed in 2026. A Secretary General says one thing while four regional chairmen say another. A former National Chairman supports the regional chairmen’s account. The present National Chairman reportedly was the Secretary General to whom the resignation was originally addressed, yet according to the regional chairmen he was not consulted before the disputed 2026 letter was sent. The SLPP then relied upon that disputed letter to challenge the political status of one of its own flagbearer aspirants. If that does not demand investigation, what does?
The PPRC should establish the documentary truth. The CDP should open its records, the SLPP should explain its procedures, Musa Tarawally should provide his evidence, Victor O. King should clarify what he knows about the 2018 resignation, Ibrahim Sorie Sesay should explain the documentary basis upon which he concluded that Tarawally remained a member, Gibril Thullah’s account should be formally examined and the four regional chairmen’s statement should be scrutinised. The PPRC should also determine whether it received correspondence concerning Tarawally’s suspension and departure in 2018. Let records settle the matter.
But Sierra Leone must not stop there because this affair has exposed a crack in our democracy large enough for everyone to see. We need political parties with genuine members, functioning offices, transparent finances, credible records and independent leadership. We need political organisations that survive between elections and cannot suddenly be activated or influenced whenever powerful political interests need another voice. We need alternatives to APC and SLPP, not satellites around them. We need political competition, not political decoration. We need pluralism, not counterfeit pluralism.
Sierra Leone does not need fewer political choices. We need more genuine choices. That is why the danger is not the existence of the CDP or any other small political party. The danger is the existence of political organisations so institutionally weak that questions can legitimately arise about who speaks for them, who finances them, where they operate and whether outsiders can influence them.
The danger is a party whose Secretary General says one thing while its regional chairmen say another, an eight year old resignation suddenly becoming the basis for stopping a flagbearer aspirant, a political system where membership records can become weapons and a ballot paper crowded with political parties while meaningful power remains concentrated among established political interests. That is the danger of mushroom democracy: parties springing up everywhere while democratic institutions take root nowhere.
The PPRC must therefore prove that registration means regulation. The CDP must prove that it is an independent and functioning political institution. The SLPP must prove that its handling of Musa Tarawally is based upon consistent constitutional rules rather than political convenience. Musa Tarawally must substantiate his claims through records, and those CDP officials contradicting one another must be brought before the appropriate regulatory process so Sierra Leone can finally know what happened on and after 15 June 2018.
Let everybody bring their records and let the documents, the law and an independent regulatory process settle the dispute. Sierra Leone’s democracy is too important to be determined by contradictory letters, dormant political structures, disputed membership registers and organisations that suddenly become relevant when somebody powerful needs their signature.
Before 2028, we must know which political parties are genuine organisations and which are merely mushrooms growing in the shadows of Sierra Leone’s two political giants. Otherwise, we may continue boasting about multiparty democracy while gradually building something far more dangerous: a political system with many parties on paper, but very few truly independent choices for the people.