By Mohamed Kamara
The Public Service Commission PSC has sparked debate following its announcement that it is developing a new Code of Conduct for Political Appointees while strengthening the existing Code of Conduct for Public Officers.
The announcement was made by Kalilu Omoru Bah, Director of Corporate Affairs at the Public Service Commission, while delivering a speech on behalf of the Commission at Limkokwing University of Creative Technology’s third annual Career Fair on October 30, 2026.
Held under the theme “Preparing Talents for the Future: Navigating Digital Transformation, Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Career Opportunities,” the event provided a platform for discussions on the future of employment, institutional development and public service reform.
However, the Commission’s proposed initiative has raised questions among some observers about the constitutional boundaries of its mandate, particularly in relation to the executive powers of the President to appoint and dismiss political appointees.
Fatmata Bintu Mansaray, a postgraduate student at a local university, described the proposed move as an institutional overreach, arguing that political appointments are fundamentally different from appointments within the established civil service.
According to Mansaray, political appointees are generally individuals selected by a President from within or outside the ruling party to serve in key government positions, including ministerial and diplomatic offices.
She argued that, in many democratic systems, the President exercises executive authority in appointing individuals to such positions and may also dismiss them when deemed necessary, subject to applicable constitutional and legal provisions.
Mansaray further noted that, in several African countries, including Sierra Leone, political appointees may not always be required to publicly disclose the reasons for their dismissal. She also argued that their salaries, benefits and privileges are often determined by the nature of their appointments rather than the established civil service grading system.
She cited diplomatic passports and financial support for official engagements abroad as examples of privileges that may be available to certain political appointees while in office.
Mansaray also distinguished political appointments that require parliamentary approval or scrutiny from ordinary civil service appointments, arguing that the Public Service Commission’s role in the appointment process may differ depending on the position and the applicable legal framework.
In contrast, she described civil servants as government employees whose employment conditions, salaries, benefits and professional responsibilities are generally governed by established civil service rules and regulations.
According to her, civil servants play a central role in implementing government policies and approved development plans, regardless of the political party in power. Their work, she maintained, requires professionalism, accountability, transparency and adherence to established administrative procedures.
She noted that the Civil Service Code of Conduct provides guidelines governing the official behaviour of public officers and outlines disciplinary measures for violations. Such measures may include suspension and other sanctions, depending on the nature and severity of the misconduct and the applicable rules.
Mansaray also emphasised the importance of maintaining professional relationships between civil servants and political leadership while ensuring that public institutions operate efficiently and remain accountable.
She expressed concern that the absence of a clearly articulated national policy addressing the relationship between political leadership and the public service could contribute to continuing disagreements over institutional responsibilities and governance.
Regarding the proposed Code of Conduct for Political Appointees, Mansaray argued that the initiative raises complex constitutional and administrative questions that require careful examination.
She further questioned whether political appointments should be governed by the same standards and procedures applicable to career civil servants, noting that political appointments are often influenced by political considerations rather than conventional professional recruitment processes.
Using examples of appointments across government institutions, she argued that individuals from different professional backgrounds may be selected to lead ministries outside their areas of specialised training or experience. She cited the possibility of a journalist heading the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or a political scientist leading the ministry responsible for fisheries as examples of the diverse backgrounds from which political appointees may be drawn.
She suggested that these practices should form part of broader discussions about institutional effectiveness, professional competence and the need to strengthen public service structures.
The proposed Code of Conduct has therefore brought renewed attention to the distinction between political appointments and career public service, as well as the need to clarify the respective responsibilities of constitutional institutions.
While the Public Service Commission has indicated its intention to strengthen standards of conduct across the public service, questions remain about the scope of the proposed code, the legal authority under which it would operate and how it would relate to the President’s constitutional appointment powers.
A clearer understanding of these issues will be important in determining how the proposed framework could promote accountability and ethical conduct without creating uncertainty over the constitutional responsibilities of the executive and the Public Service Commission.