By Albert David
In any democracy, institutions do not earn legitimacy merely by existing. They earn it through fairness, consistency, and the courage to uphold the law without fear or favour. The Political Parties Regulation Commission (PPRC) was established to be that neutral referee, a stabilizing force in a politically charged landscape. Yet today, its pattern of selective enforcement raises profound questions about its independence, its ethical grounding, and its fidelity to the Constitution.
Across Sierra Leone, citizens have observed a troubling trend. Some political actors appear untouchable, while others face swift and punitive regulatory action for comparable or even lesser conduct.This is not the behaviour of a neutral institution.
This is the behaviour of a captured one.
Fatima Bio’s call for Kailahun residents to block the APC from opening a party office, paired with her assertion that only SLPP members are “true Sierra Leoneans”, should have triggered section 39 of the PPRC act with immediate institutional scrutiny. Instead, it was met with silence. Yet the law is unambiguous.
Section 39(1)(a–c) prohibits: Statements that provoke political hostility, statements that undermine national cohesion, and statements capable of inciting discrimination or exclusion.
Declaring that only members of one political party are “true Sierra Leoneans”:
Delegitimizes millions of citizens, creates an exclusionary identity divide, encourages political hostility, and threatens peaceful coexistence. This is precisely the type of rhetoric Section 39 was designed to prevent.
Section 39(1)(d): Insulting or derogatory language, labeling citizens of another party as “not true Sierra Leoneans” is not political banter, it is a direct attack on identity, belonging, and citizenship. It is derogatory, demeaning, and corrosive to national unity.
“APC should not be allowed to open any party office in Kailahun.” This statement crosses an even more serious threshold.
A. Incitement and provocation under Section 39(1)(a–c)
It encourages obstruction, hostility, and confrontation, it undermines political tolerance and it threatens the right of a political party to operate freely.
B. Conflict with constitutional rights.
Political parties have the right to operate nationwide, open offices anywhere, and mobilize supporters without intimidation. A public figure urging the obstruction of these rights is not merely expressing an opinion, they are encouraging exclusionary political behaviour that contradicts the Constitution and the PPRC’s mandate.
A Pattern Too Consistent to Ignore. Kadiru Kaikai’s threat to “start a war” if denied the SLPP flagbearer position, a statement that should have triggered section 39 followed by immediate investigation, passed without inquiry. David Moinina Sengeh’s dismissal of the APC as “not good for the nation,” and SLPP PRO Moses Mambu’s branding of APC officials as “dishonest, rogues, and thieves,” likewise drew no reprimand.
Yet opposition figures, particularly from the APC, continue to face fines, condemnations, and regulatory interventions for statements of similar or lesser severity. This is not regulation. This is selective justice.
And selective justice is injustice. A commission that applies the law unevenly becomes a partisan instrument, a shield for the politically powerful, a bully toward the politically vulnerable, and a constitutional liability. It becomes deceptive, manipulative, and corrosive to democratic trust. It undermines the very peace Section 39 was designed to protect. When institutions lose neutrality, democracies lose stability.
The PPRC must decide what it intends to be.
A guardian of democratic integrity, or an accessory to political imbalance. Sierra Leone deserves institutions that honour their constitutional oath. Its democracy deserves fairness. Its people deserve better than selective enforcement masquerading as regulation. The quiet collapse of institutional neutrality is not quiet anymore. It is visible, it is dangerous, and it must be confronted
