By Mahmud Tim Kargbo
In 2018, President Julius Maada Bio rose to power on a wave of public optimism and reformist zeal, vowing to restore Sierra Leone’s wealth to its people by revisiting and revising exploitative mining contracts. That pledge—enshrined in the SLPP’s 2018 manifesto—was unequivocal: predatory foreign mining agreements would be reviewed, reformed, or repealed.
Seven years later, that promise lies in ruins, and the consequences have been nothing short of devastating.
The Bio administration’s failure is more than political negligence—it constitutes a moral, economic, constitutional, and national betrayal. Rather than defending Sierra Leone’s interests, President Bio prioritised repaying foreign debt to institutions like the IMF and World Bank, while health systems collapsed, schools decayed, and critical infrastructure remained neglected. Not only did the government fail to recover the nation’s stolen wealth—it facilitated its continued extraction, exporting Sierra Leone’s tax base to neocolonial creditors and deepening the suffering of its people.
Unfulfilled Pledges, Unabated Exploitation
President Bio’s manifesto pledge to renegotiate exploitative mining contracts was a response to hard truths: between 2009 and 2012, Sierra Leone lost over $224 million in mining revenue due to tax holidays and lopsided agreements with just five multinational corporations. That loss exceeded the nation’s combined health and education budgets during the same period.
Source: Christian Aid & Tax Justice Network Africa (2014), Honest Accounts?
Despite having access to this data, the Bio administration has failed to audit, amend, or cancel even a single major mining contract. Particularly alarming cases—such as Chinese-owned Wangtong Mining operating without valid licenses—were met with silence. The government’s inaction signals not oversight, but deliberate accommodation of corruption and foreign exploitation.
The Stabilisation Clause Myth: Legal Fiction, Political Excuse
One of the main defences offered by Bio-era officials is the so-called immutability of stabilisation clauses—contractual provisions allegedly preventing the government from amending mining agreements without breaching international law. However, this claim collapses under legal scrutiny.
Types of Stabilisation Clauses:
Freezing Clauses: Lock in the legal framework as of the contract’s signing.
Economic Equilibrium Clauses: Allow legal change, with provisions for compensating investors if profitability is affected.
Renegotiation Clauses: Permit legal reform under evolving social or economic conditions.
Source: EITI & NRGI (2018), The Concession Stands
International law is clear: stabilisation clauses cannot override a state’s sovereign right to act in the public interest—especially in cases involving corruption, environmental degradation, or human rights violations.
Occidental v. Ecuador and Parkerings v. Lithuania confirmed that stabilisation clauses do not protect investors from non-discriminatory, proportionate legal reforms.
Guinea, after a regime change, lawfully voided several contracts found to be corrupt and exploitative.
Sources: ICSID Arbitration Records; Natural Resource Governance Institute (2014)
The Bio administration had both the legal tools and international precedents to act. Instead, it chose to appease investors and perpetuate a corrupt status quo.
The Constitution Was Clear—But Bio Chose to Ignore It
Even more damning is that Sierra Leone’s Constitution provided legal authority for the Bio administration to refuse servicing illegitimate or odious debts inherited from its predecessor.
Section 40(3) of the 1991 Constitution mandates that:
“The President shall be the guardian of the Constitution and the custodian of the rights of the people of Sierra Leone.”
This is not symbolic—it’s binding. Additionally, Section 47(2) allows the President to review, suspend, or nullify agreements made unconstitutionally or to the detriment of national sovereignty and public interest.
In this context, President Bio had a constitutional duty—not merely a political option—to reject debts that were:
Incurred without parliamentary scrutiny,
Derived from corruption,
Used to benefit elites while burdening citizens with repayment.
Further reinforcing this, Article 21 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, ratified by Sierra Leone, grants the people the right to freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources, and—crucially—the right to seek restitution in cases of spoliation.
The Bio government, despite this legal arsenal, instead chose silence and subservience to foreign lenders.
Cosmetic Reform: The Mining Act Amendment That Stayed on Paper
In 2022, the Bio administration introduced amendments to the Mines and Minerals Development Act, signaling a long-overdue effort to address systemic gaps in transparency, community benefit-sharing, and environmental standards. These reforms promised a new era of accountability and resource sovereignty.
However, three years later, those reforms remain largely paper-bound and poorly enforced, failing to match the outcomes seen in countries that have truly benefited from their natural resource wealth.
Comparative International Context:
Botswana, with strong enforcement of equity participation, has ensured real community and national benefit from diamonds.
Ghana’s 2006 Minerals and Mining Act includes a functioning Minerals Commission and Environmental Protection Agency, both of which regularly audit compliance and revenue flows.
Chile ensures transparency in revenue disclosure through its sovereign wealth fund mechanisms tied to copper exports.
In contrast, Sierra Leone’s amended Mining Act lacks:
Functional oversight mechanisms,
Publicly accessible contract databases,
Enforced royalty and genuine community development payments,
Environmental accountability.
While the amendments appear progressive in form, their implementation is non-existent in function—serving more as an image boost for international observers than a transformative tool for Sierra Leoneans.
Debt Servicing as a Tool of Neocolonial Control
While mining corruption festered, the government remained obsessively committed to repaying billions in foreign debt—often at the expense of basic public services.
In 2023:
Sierra Leone spent more on external debt servicing than on its entire education budget.
Clinics lacked medicines. Teachers went unpaid. Power outages increased. Water access declined.
Sources: Budget Advocacy Network Reports (2022–2023); IMF Country Reports
The Cost of a Debt-First Approach:
Misplaced Priorities: Debt repayments were placed above healthcare, education, and basic dignity.
Poverty Reinforcement: Illegitimate debts were paid; the people who suffered under them were left behind.
Breach of the Social Contract: Citizens were abandoned by a government elected to protect them.
Human Rights Violations: Under Article 2(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Sierra Leone must progressively realize rights to health, education, and welfare. Bio’s administration defied that obligation.
Alternative Paths Were Available—But Ignored
Other countries have chosen justice over subservience:
Ecuador (2008) declared large portions of its national debt illegitimate, redirecting savings to health and education.
Tanzania (2000s) paused debt repayment, renegotiated terms, and expanded essential services.
Civil society movements like Jubilee Debt Campaign and ActionAid have long advocated for:
Cancellation of corrupt loans,
Moratoriums when repayment endangers rights,
Domestic revenue mobilization rather than extraction-based dependence.
Yet Bio’s government ignored these models—choosing instead to serve creditors while Sierra Leoneans suffered.
A Nation Betrayed
The SLPP government under Julius Maada Bio not only broke its promises to reclaim Sierra Leone’s mineral wealth—it surrendered the nation’s future to external interests. The legal options existed. The constitutional mandates were clear. Viable models were available. But what was missing was political will.
Today, most Sierra Leoneans cannot afford food, education, or basic healthcare—not because the nation lacks wealth, but because that wealth continues to be stolen with official permission.
A responsible government must always remember:
its first and most sacred debt is to its people.
References:
SLPP 2018 Manifesto
Christian Aid & Tax Justice Network Africa (2014), Honest Accounts?
EITI & NRGI (2018), The Concession Stands
UN General Assembly Resolution 1803 (XVII), Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources
ICSID Cases: Occidental v. Ecuador; Parkerings v. Lithuania
Guinea Mining Contract Audits, NRGI (2014)
IMF & Budget Advocacy Network Reports (2021–2023)
Politico SL (2022), Corruption in the Mines Ministry
UN OHCHR, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
Jubilee Debt Campaign, ActionAid, Oxfam Debt Briefings (2020–2023)
Debt Justice UK Reports; Ecuador & Tanzania Case Studies
Constitution of Sierra Leone (1991): Sections 40(3) and 47(2)
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Article 21)
Mines and Minerals Development (Amendment) Act, 2022
Ghana Minerals and Mining Act (2006); Botswana Diamond Policy; Chile Copper Revenue Transparency Law