In fragile democracies, language is never neutral. It signals intent, shapes perception, and, in its most dangerous form, grants permission.
Recent remarks attributed to the President, suggesting that “anyone who supports APC in Bonthe shall die in the morning,” have reverberated far beyond partisan debate. Whether defended as mistranslation, or momentary excess, such language sits within a troubling pattern of rhetoric from senior ruling party figures invoking elimination, exclusion, and death in reference to political opponents.
Some senior SLPP government and party officials have denied that the president said those inciting words, saying the head of state was misinterpreted. They suggested that if one were to ask a trusted friend who is fluent in the President’s mother language, they would learn the actual meaning of what President Bio said. For the avoidance of doubt, I took the challenge and asked a trusted friend who is of the same extraction as President Bio and who is fluent in his native tongue. Here is what he said:
“True. He said it also in a serious manner to incite violence. [It seems he] is putting together evidence against himself.”
Peace and conflict experts hold the view that patterns define political climates, sometimes with dire consequences. In this case, the remarks attributed to the President do not stand alone. They are part of a sequence of statements that, taken together, form a disturbing rhetorical arc:
Just about two weeks ago, the SLPP deputy national publicity secretary reportedly declared: “I want all APC to die.”
Two days ago, the ruling party chairman repeatedly asserted: “No more APC! No more APC! No more APC in this country!”
And the now widely circulated presidential remark: “Anyone who says they support APC in Bonthe shall die early in the morning.”
These patterns, no matter the disclaimers, shape public interpretation. In political sociology, this aligns with what is termed “hate speech,” language that increases the likelihood of violence by framing opponents not as rivals, but as enemies whose existence is intolerable.
Sierra Leone’s Immediate Context
The concern is grounded in recent experience. The 2023 electoral period saw intimidation and violence against opposition supporters: denial of access for polling agents in parts of the southeast, attacks on party offices, and physical assaults, including machete injuries in districts such as Kailahun, Kenema, Pujehun, Bonthe, with tensions extending into the Western Area. Within such a climate, statements invoking death are not rhetorical excess. They are accelerants.
Selective Enforcement and a Test of Institutions
This moment also raises a deeper institutional question: whether the law will be applied evenly, or selectively.
The Political Parties Regulation Commission (PPRC) has previously acted against opposition figures for statements deemed inflammatory. The APC National Secretary General, Lansana Dumbuya, faced disciplinary measures by the PPRC abd detention by the police. Zainab Sheriff was similarly indicted and detained by the state over remarks authorities considered inciteful. Those actions were justified as necessary to safeguard public order.
The present situation tests whether that same threshold will apply when statements of equal or greater severity emerge from ruling party officials, including the presidency. As one political analyst notes, institutional legitimacy depends not on isolated enforcement, but on consistency.
The APC, and the broader public, are watching closely how the PPRC and the police respond because the issue is no longer enforcement—it is equitable enforcement.
Law, Liability, and the Weight of Words
Sierra Leone’s Constitution guarantees the right to life, security, and political participation. These protections are reinforced by international instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, both of which prohibit incitement to violence. Beyond this lies the doctrine of command responsibility, under which leaders may bear liability where their words or authority contribute to acts of violence carried out by others. In this framework, repeated public statements invoking death are not politically neutral. They carry legal and moral consequence.
The defense that such remarks are casual expressions weakens under repetition and context. When phrases like “must die,” “shall die,” and “no more APC in this country” enter the vocabulary of those in power, and when they are echoed across multiple officials, the distinction between rhetoric and instruction begins to erode. What remains is interpretation, and in volatile environments, interpretation can be lethal.
A Republic at a Crossroads
Political violence rarely begins with action. It begins with tolerance—tolerance of language that normalizes harm. If such rhetoric is left unchallenged, it risks becoming embedded in the political culture, repeated, amplified, and eventually enacted. Therefore, any violence against APC supporters in Bonthe or elsewhere, particularly in the wake of these statements, will not be viewed in isolation. It will be interpreted through the prism of prior declarations by those in positions of authority. That is the enduring reality of power: words do not dissipate. They accumulate, and sometimes, they detonate.
Sierra Leone stands at a delicate juncture. Its institutions are being tested, its political culture strained, and its commitment to equal protection under the law placed under scrutiny.
The outcome will depend not on what has been said, but on what is done next.