By Mahmud Tim Kargbo
Monday, 1 December 2025
For two days, the public stage has been lit with bold accusations, urgent whispers, and headlines crafted to stir unease. A chorus of reports has attempted to cast Sierra Leone’s Director of Lands, Mr Tamba Dauda, as a villain obstructing the sacred right to property. Titles such as “Lands Director Under Fire President to Intervene”, “Land Disputes Director of Lands in Big Mess”, “Director of Lands Accused”, “Contempt! Land Director Undermines Judiciary”, “Hill Cot Road Land Saga Director in Legal Quagmire” and “Abuse of Office” have played like melodramatic scenes in a courtroom drama, each insisting that administrative power has been recklessly wielded. Yet when the curtains are drawn back and the facts examined under the steady light of law, ethics, and governance, the script tells a very different story.
A closer, more disciplined assessment of national legislation, constitutional provisions, the Civil Service Code, the 2015 National Land Policy, international standards of tenure governance, and the frameworks established by ECOWAS, the African Union, and the FAO reveals that the Director did not overreach. On the contrary, he acted squarely within his legal and ethical obligations. His decision to withhold a development permit for 4 Hill Cot Road, in the face of apparent fraud, disputed ownership, contradictory conveyances, and a written denial from the purported landowner, was not an act of interference. It was a demonstration of responsible and lawful public administration.
This article sets out the full legal, ethical, administrative and international rationale that supports the Director’s stance. It also includes, verbatim, the handwritten complaint submitted by the alleged landowner, Bassam Koussa, whose accusation of forgery alone warrants the suspension of all development activity until thorough verification is completed.
The Real Issue at Stake: The Integrity of Sierra Leone’s Land Governance System
At its core, this dispute is not merely about one permit. It concerns the integrity of Sierra Leone’s land administration, the security of tenure for all citizens, and the duty of public officers to prevent fraudulent dispossession.
A Director of Lands who ignores credible evidence of forgery or contested title would be guilty of dereliction of duty. A Director who investigates before approving a development would be upholding the rule of law.
Mr Dauda clearly chose the lawful path.
Understanding the System: Why Caution Is Not Optional in a Deed Registration Regime
Sierra Leone operates a deed registration system. This system records documents, not boundaries. It does not guarantee title. It is vulnerable to:
Fake Powers of Attorney
Multiple sales of the same land
Signature forgeries
Overlapping claims
Gaps in cadastral mapping
Conflicts between registered and customary claims
In such a context, the law places an even higher responsibility on the Director of Lands to verify ownership before granting any development authorisation. Approving a permit prematurely can expose the State to legal liability and facilitate illegal dispossession of rightful owners.
Thus, caution is not discretionary. It is mandatory.
National Land Policy 2015: What the Law Actually Requires the Director to Do
The 2015 National Land Policy imposes direct obligations on State officials. It states:
“The State must safeguard legitimate tenure rights against threats and infringements”
http/ /: www.pdfroom.com/books/final-national-land-policy-of-sierra-leone/0K2llDXn2ap
“Tenure right holders must be protected against arbitrary loss of their tenure rights”
http/ /: www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/legal/docs/LegalPapers_96_VGGT_Report.pdf
“Access to justice should be guaranteed in cases of disputed tenure”
http/ /: www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/legal/docs/LegalPapers_96_VGGT_Report.pdf
Once a potential fraud is reported, especially through a sworn declaration by the alleged landowner, the Director of Lands becomes legally obligated to suspend administrative action until the dispute is resolved.
Had he issued a permit, he would have violated these explicit policy mandates.
International Standards: VGGT Requirements Apply Directly to Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone has adopted the UN FAO Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure VGGT, which state:
“States should recognise and respect all legitimate tenure right holders and refrain from actions that infringe upon these rights”
http/ /: www.fao.org/4/i2801e/i2801e.pdf
“States should provide safeguards to protect tenure rights against threats and arbitrary loss”
http/ /: www.fao.org/4/i2801e/i2801e.pdf
Issuing a development permit when the alleged owner has declared that his signature was forged would constitute an infringement and an arbitrary deprivation of tenure.
The Director’s refusal aligns perfectly with the VGGT.
African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights: Property Is Constitutionally Protected
The African Charter, which Sierra Leone is bound by, affirms:
“The right to property shall be guaranteed. Property may only be encroached upon in the interest of the public and in accordance with the law”
http/ /: www.achpr.au.int/en/node/641
This means that:
No administrative decision should violate an existing owner’s rights
Fraudulent acquisition cannot override legitimate ownership
Development that interferes with a rightful owner is an unlawful encroachment
The Director protected the rightful owner from such interference.
The Sierra Leone Constitution: Duties and Rights Not Optional
The Constitution of Sierra Leone is explicit on property and justice:
“Every person shall be entitled to the fundamental human rights and freedoms of the individual including the right to life, liberty, security of the person and the protection of the law.”
Sections 15 and 21
http/ /: www.parliament.gov.sl/uploads/acts/THE%20CONSTITUTION%20OF%20SIERRA%20LEONE%201991.pdf
“No property shall be compulsorily taken possession of, and no interest in or right over property shall be compulsorily acquired except where such acquisition is necessary in the public interest and where the law makes provision for the prompt payment of adequate compensation.”
Issuing a development permit based on a forged conveyance would undermine the protection of the law and amount to an unconstitutional deprivation of property.
The Director’s caution is constitutionally required.
Civil Service Code of Sierra Leone: What Officials Must Do When Fraud Is Alleged
The Civil Service Code demands that public officials:
Act with integrity
Ensure impartial and lawful decision making
Protect public assets
Avoid decisions that enable wrongdoing
Prioritise public interest above external pressure
Issuing a permit based on a fraudulent Power of Attorney would violate every one of these duties. The Director upheld the Code by refusing to act until verification was completed.
African Union Land Governance Strategy: Administrative Caution Is a Legal Duty
The African Union’s Land Governance Strategy emphasises:
Prevention of fraudulent or irregular land transactions
Protection of absentee property owners
Requirement for verification of disputed documents
Duty of state actors to halt processes when ownership is unclear
This directly supports the Director’s decision.
ECOWAS Land Governance Framework: Protection of Rightful Owners Is Paramount
The ECOWAS Framework for Land Policy (Volume 1) stresses:
Authenticity of documents must be verified before administrative action
States must protect citizens against fraudulent land transfers
Absentee landowners retain their full rights
Officials must suspend decisions in the presence of disputes
By following these principles, the Director aligned Sierra Leone with regional best practice.
The High Court Order: Why It Did Not Automatically Convey Ownership
Much media reporting has misrepresented the effect of the High Court order MISC APP466 of 2024. The order:
Authorised a supervised sale
Required proper valuation
Required lawful conveyance procedures
Did not extinguish the existing title
Did not instantly transfer ownership
A High Court cannot order a sale that involves forged documents. Administrative officers must confirm that the underlying documents are genuine before recognising any interest.
Thus the Director’s hesitation is consistent with judicial caution, not defiance.
Primary Evidence of Fraud: The Handwritten Complaint from Bassam Koussa
The most important factual element in this entire matter is the direct, written, signed complaint from the man whose name appears on the alleged conveyance.
Below is the verbatim handwritten complaint submitted to the Director:
“23 August 2023
Director of Lands
Mr Tamba Dauda
Reference: Land at Hill Cot Road
Dear Sir
I have a copy of a Power of Attorney made out to Nabie Yousef Fofana, with my name “Bassam Koussa” on that document which was registered by Lawyer Vandi Nabie.
I state categorically that I did not issue or sign such document. The signature is fraud. I have not authorised anyone to sell such land specifically I have not authorised Mr Fofana to act on my behalf with any authority.
This I declare freely and willingly in view of an information I received to an attempt to sell my land by Mr Fofana
I am Bassam Koussa
My WhatsApp number is ………
My signature is: ………”
This single declaration is enough to require any responsible land administrator to halt all processes until the matter is investigated.
Failure to do so would amount to aiding a fraudulent dispossession.
Why the Negative Media Reports Are Misleading
The recent publications attacking the Director of Lands suffer from several lapses:
They assume the High Court order completed the transfer. It did not.
They ignore the handwritten complaint of the rightful owner.
They do not account for the duty to verify ownership under national and international law.
They treat technical approvals as overriding legal concerns, which is incorrect.
They present administrative caution as obstruction when it is actually required by law.
Journalistic responsibility requires acknowledging the legal complexities. Simplistic narratives create public misinformation.
The Director of Lands Acted Lawfully, Ethically and Courageously
The evidence is overwhelming. Far from abusing his office, the Director of Lands took the only legally defensible course of action. He aligned with:
The Constitution of Sierra Leone
The Civil Service Code
The 2015 National Land Policy
The UN FAO VGGT
The African Charter
ECOWAS Land Governance Principles
The African Union Land Governance Strategy
He prevented an irreversible injustice and protected both the rightful landowner and the State.
Responsible land governance is not measured by speed, but by integrity.
In this case, the Director of Lands acted not only within the law but in defence of it.