I have read with dismay a post concerning a joint statement from the NCRA, the ONS, and the SLP, which mandates both citizens and non-citizens to comply with a deadline to obtain their National/Non-national IDs.

This statement appears to be contested by Eleanor Thompson Esq., who claims:

“National ID cards should be free like voter ID cards. The right to belong and to national identity/citizenship is a fundamental right, just like the right to vote. Citizens shouldn’t be forced to pay for proof of that identity/right. To then enforce it with state security is extortive.”

I have been contemplating for days to respond to her claims and let it be known that I assume full responsibility for it. It seems that Ms. Thompson may not have conducted thorough research before countering the PR issued by these three reputable government institutions, each responsible for registering nationals, safeguarding the state, and protecting lives and property, respectively.

Related News

Her assertion that IDs should be free lacks substantiation. There is no country where national IDs are issued without cost. In the U.S., for instance, citizens pay for IDs as determined by individual states, with Illinois residents, for example, paying $30 for an ID—over five times the fee set by the NCRA through the Government of Sierra Leone (GoSL). In the UK, the cost starts at £18 for standard delivery, escalating to £35 for an expedited 1-2 day service, which is more than six times the fee requested here with delivery in up to 3 days.

Let’s address why obtaining a National ID should be mandatory:

If Ms. Thompson has not been closely following the security challenges faced by our country over the last six years, her oversight might be forgiven. However, mandating National IDs enhances public safety and security by providing proper identity verification, reducing identity theft, and curbing fraud and other criminal activities.

Moreover, for national security, the collaboration between ONS, SLP, and NCRA allows for better tracking of individuals of interest, making it easier to monitor potential threats or criminal activities.

Beyond security, National IDs facilitate administrative efficiency by streamlining services such as tax collection, healthcare, and other social services. They are also crucial for social integration, ensuring access to basic rights under initiatives like the FQE and the legal system.

These points underscore the necessity of mandatory National ID acquisition for citizens.

Regarding Ms. Thompson’s claim about free IDs in other countries, as a lawyer, making such assertions without fact-checking is detrimental to her profession’s credibility. She might benefit from reviewing the U.S. Real ID Act of 2005 (for further information, see: dhs.gov/real-id/real-id-faqs), which outlines the necessity of Real IDs for identity fraud prevention, improved security, and counterfeiting prevention, with full compliance expected by 7th May 2025.

Several other nations mandate National IDs, including Argentina (Documento Nacional de Identidad), Belgium (carte d’identité), and Germany (Personalausweis).

What fault can be found with the GoSL’s efforts to ensure citizen safety, enhance access to numerous benefits, and mandate the acquisition of National IDs for the public good? Ms. Thompson’s claims appear to defame her own country, lacking substance and possibly driven by misinformation. Perhaps she should commend the government’s efforts in introducing the first securitized identity cards meeting ICAO standards, a model that countries like Gambia recently visited her country to learn from, Tanzania, Rwanda have done likewise and Nigeria looking to integrate the NIN into their own IDs.

Rather than undermining every well-intentioned effort by government, why not we recognize and support these initiatives?