For some time, I have written and spoken about the activities and policy positions of the former United States Ambassador to Sierra Leone, Bryan D. Hunt. Regrettably, many people—including some leaders of the APC—did not give my observations the attention I believed they deserved.
I now invite Sierra Leoneans to examine an interesting sequence of events surrounding the commencement of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2024 (Act No. 8 of 2024).
The Act formally came into operation on 16 September 2025. Section 2, its interpretation provision, defines “marriage,” for the purposes of the Act, as a marriage between a man and a woman celebrated and recognised as valid under:
(i) the Christian Marriage Act (Cap. 95);
(ii) the Muslim Marriage Act (Cap. 96);
(iii) the Civil Marriage Act (Cap. 97); or
(iv) the Registration of Customary Marriages and Divorce Act, 2009, or any other applicable rule of customary law in Sierra Leone.
In effect, the definition adopted by the Act recognises marriage, within its particular statutory context, as a union between a man and a woman. It does not recognise a same-sex union as “marriage” for the purposes of criminal procedure under that Act.
What makes the matter particularly striking is the timing. The Act commenced on 16 September 2025, and Ambassador Hunt’s resignation took effect on 17 September 2025—the very next day. The official explanation was that he resigned for personal reasons connected with the medical condition of an elderly family member.
However, considering his perceived support for LGBT rights and the public concern that foreign diplomatic pressure was being exerted to influence Sierra Leonean policy and legislation, the extraordinary proximity between these two events naturally raises questions.
Was his resignation genuinely and exclusively attributable to the stated family circumstances? Or did the commencement of legislation expressly defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman contribute to his decision?
I cannot present that connection as an established fact without documentary or other direct evidence. It remains my personal inference, based principally on the timing and surrounding circumstances. Nevertheless, the coincidence is sufficiently remarkable to deserve public discussion and closer scrutiny.
Therefore, the official explanation may be accepted as the stated reason, but Sierra Leoneans are equally entitled to examine the chronology critically and arrive at their own informed conclusions. As for me, the timing still makes the official explanation difficult to accept without question.