In the midst of Sierra Leone’s turbulent political climate, the release of the Tripartite Report will reignite the conversation about public trust in governance.

While the recommendations of such reports are often hailed as steps toward transparency and accountability, history has shown that recommendations alone are insufficient to rebuild public trust. The real test lies in their implementation—a domain where Sierra Leone’s politicians have consistently fallen short. This skepticism is not without basis; the fate of the final report of the Truth & Reconciliation Commission (TRC) serves as a stark reminder. Despite its comprehensive recommendations aimed at healing a nation scarred by civil war, the TRC report has largely been ignored, its recommendations gathering dust as political elites prioritize their interests over the nation’s well-being.

Public trust is a fragile yet vital component of any democratic society. In Sierra Leone, this trust has been eroded by a series of governmental failures and blatant disregard for accountability. The Tripartite Report, like the TRC report before it, contains numerous well-meaning recommendations.

However, for these recommendations to have any real impact, there must be a genuine commitment to their implementation. Unfortunately, the pattern has been one of inaction and resistance whenever political or economic interests are at stake.

The common narrative among citizens is that politicians are more concerned with maintaining their opportunities to benefit personally—what is colloquially known as “eating”—than with fostering genuine progress.

The frustration among the populace is palpable. Many Sierra Leoneans, disillusioned by the continuous cycle of unmet promises and unaddressed corruption, have retreated from political engagement. I have long argued with those who claim that “politics ain’t for them,” insisting that unlike North Korea, Sierra Leone still holds the potential for democratic participation and that all voices are necessary for the development we desire. However, recent events have challenged this optimistic stance.

The misapplication of the Cyber Security Act is one such event that highlights the deteriorating political landscape. Originally intended to protect citizens and ensure cyber safety, the Act has instead been weaponized against dissent, stifling free speech and criminalizing criticism of the government. This misuse undermines the very principles of democracy and justice that the Act was supposed to uphold.

Moreover, the continued compromise of civil and professional bodies further erodes trust. These institutions, which should operate independently to serve the public interest, have instead been co-opted by political forces, reducing them to mere extensions of the ruling party’s will.

This degradation is evident in the militarization of society, where state security forces are increasingly used to intimidate and suppress opposition rather than protect citizens.

The culture of sycophancy and praise-singing exacerbates the problem. Instead of holding leaders accountable, many citizens, driven by fear or self-interest, engage in uncritical adulation of those in power. Critics are quickly labeled as enemies of progress, a tactic that silences meaningful dialogue and hinders the country’s development. This environment of unquestioning loyalty to the government discourages critical examination and constructive criticism, both of which are essential for a healthy democracy.

Environmental degradation is another area where political apathy is evident. Despite clear evidence of the harm caused by activities such as illegal logging and unregulated mining, ministers remain shamefully silent. Their inaction not only reflects a disregard for the environment but also a lack of concern for the communities that depend on these natural resources for their livelihoods.

This silence and inaction suggest that environmental protection is sacrificed on the altar of political expediency and financial gain.
In light of these issues, one might wonder whether the comparison to North Korea is entirely unfounded.

While Sierra Leone is not yet an authoritarian state, the signs of democratic backsliding are worrying. The space for civil society is shrinking, the independence of institutions is compromised, and the environment for free expression is increasingly hostile.

The way forward requires a concerted effort from all sectors of society. Citizens must continue to demand accountability and resist the temptation to disengage from the political process. Civil society organizations need to be vigilant and vocal, holding the government to its promises and ensuring that recommendations from reports like the Tripartite are not just filed away but actively pursued.

For true change to occur, there must be a shift in the political culture of Sierra Leone. Leaders must prioritize national interest over personal gain and demonstrate a genuine commitment to implementing reforms. Only then can public trust be restored, and the country set on a path to sustainable development.

In conclusion, the Tripartite Report alone cannot rebuild public trust. Implementation of its recommendations, coupled with a broader commitment to transparency, accountability, and the rule of law, is essential. Without this commitment, Sierra Leone risks further erosion of trust in its political institutions and a bleak future for its democracy.