Higher Education Minister ‘Prove Witch’ from the ‘Witch Kingdom’

By Thaimu Thullah

Recent statements attributed to Sierra Leone’s Minister of Technical and Higher Education, Dr Haja Ramatulai Wurie, concerning Professor Philip John Kanu, demand serious public scrutiny.

If the Minister is alleging that Professor Kanu personally forged or altered recruitment documents at Milton Margai Technical University, she must produce evidence capable of supporting that grave accusation or else people will consider her statement or accusation against Prof Kanu as witch-hunt or what we say in our local parlance ‘prove witch’. A ministerial position and access to radio airtime cannot transform an allegation into an established fact.

The investigation into MMTU reportedly found that some interview score sheets had been altered after the interview panels submitted them. However, the crucial issue is that the committee she set up did not establish who carried out those alterations. Professor Kanu accepted ultimate administrative accountability as Vice-Chancellor, but maintained that he could not identify the person responsible for changing the scores.

Administrative accountability is not the same as personal authorship of forgery. Accepting responsibility as the head of an institution is not a confession that one physically altered a document, instructed another person to alter it or knowingly approved the alteration.

The committee’s recommendation that Professor Kanu step aside while further investigations were conducted also demonstrates that the matter had not been conclusively determined. A call for further investigation cannot reasonably be converted into a final finding of guilt.

Where Is the Forensic Evidence?

The disputed documents were reportedly handled and retained within the university’s Registry. Therefore, the central questions should be:

• Who had custody of the original documents?
• Who accessed them after the interview panels submitted their scores?
• When were the alterations made?
• Whose handwriting appears on the altered portions?
• Were fingerprints, ink, correction fluid, digital records and document metadata examined?
• Was the chain of custody properly established?

These questions require an independent forensic examination, not political pronouncements.

Once the committee could not identify the individual responsible, the Minister should have commissioned qualified forensic experts to examine the documents, as reportedly contemplated during the inquiry. Why was this essential step not completed before Professor Kanu’s name and professional reputation were publicly associated with forgery?

Anything short of an independent forensic investigation leaves the country with speculation rather than proof.

Parliament’s Findings Cannot Be Ignored

The controversy is not limited to the altered documents. Parliament’s Committee on Technical and Higher Education reportedly questioned the legality of Professor Kanu’s suspension and whether the MMTU Chancellor possessed the authority to suspend him without a collective decision of the University Court.

Public reporting indicates that 20 of the 21 University Court members present did not support the unilateral suspension. The parliamentary committee consequently recommended Professor Kanu’s reinstatement.

These are substantial governance and legal concerns. The Minister cannot demand that other institutions respect the law while dismissing parliamentary oversight and the statutory authority of the University Court.

Equal Accountability for the Minister

Questions have also been raised about the Minister’s own record at the University of Sierra Leone, including an allegation that an appointment-related document connected to her was backdated.

However, because the Minister has chosen to raise the politically and professionally damaging issue of forgery against another academic, she now has a responsibility to publish the relevant USL appointment records and clarify whether the matter was ever investigated by the Anti-Corruption Commission.

The same standard must apply to everyone. If Professor Kanu’s documents deserve forensic examination, documents connected to the Minister must be open to equivalent scrutiny.

Recent ACC findings concerning wider governance issues at USL reportedly raised concerns about unsupported allegations, reputational damage, procedural unfairness and external interference. These lessons should have encouraged the Minister to exercise greater restraint before publicly damaging another person’s reputation.

A Disturbing Pattern Across Higher Education

This dispute cannot be viewed in isolation. Reports of parliamentary proceedings have highlighted repeated disagreements involving the Ministry, the University of Sierra Leone, the Tertiary Education Commission, Njala University and MMTU.

When one ministry repeatedly finds itself in confrontation with the institutions it is supposed to guide and support, legitimate questions must be asked about its leadership style, respect for institutional autonomy and willingness to follow established procedures.

The Ministry must not become an instrument through which personal disagreements, institutional rivalries or political influence are disguised as accountability.

This Bears the Hallmarks of a Witch-Hunt

When a public official associates an individual with forgery without a conclusive forensic finding, disregards evidence concerning the custody of the disputed documents and appears unwilling to submit herself to the same standard of accountability, the resulting process inevitably creates the appearance of a targeted witch-hunt.

Professor Kanu should answer any allegation supported by credible evidence. He is not above accountability. But neither is the Minister.

Sierra Leone’s universities must be governed by law, evidence and due process—not rumours, selective accountability or trial by radio.

Until an independent forensic examination identifies who altered the MMTU documents, no responsible public official should declare Professor Philip John Kanu guilty of forgery.