By Mahmud Tim Kargbo
“Serious allegations require serious .verification”
The recent publication by Nathaniel Irobi regarding the land dispute at Bathurst Village in Freetown presents serious allegations against Deputy Minister Umaru Napoleon Koroma, RPG Robert, and officials of the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Country Planning. Upon thorough review, it is clear that the article falls short of fundamental journalistic standards, presenting speculation and one-sided claims as fact without verification.
This rebuttal seeks to clarify the factual record, highlight procedural steps undertaken, and underscore the importance of verified reporting.
Investigation and Procedural Context
Contrary to the narrative in the article, Hon. Rosaline Hawa Siaffa’s claims were addressed through formal channels prior to publication. Upon raising her concerns with President Julius Maada Bio, the matter was first referred to the Vice President and subsequently assigned to the Chief Minister, Dr David Moinina Sengeh.
The Chief Minister convened meetings, including Hawa Siaffa’s representatives, and directed a full survey of the disputed land, examining the validity of all parties’ titles in relation to government ownership. The Ministry of Lands, Housing and Country Planning, under the leadership of Dr Turad Senesie, undertook a comprehensive report over two to three months, which was submitted to the Office of the President and forwarded to the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister then held meetings to plan implementation of the report’s recommendations.
It is therefore clear that official processes were underway, and due diligence was exercised, contrary to the article’s portrayal of inaction or negligence.
Premature Publication and Incomplete Information
Hawa Siaffa’s article was published before the investigation report was concluded and prior to the commencement of implementation meetings. At the time of publication:
The Ministry had completed its survey and issued recommendations.
Implementation meetings had only begun, and Hawa Siaffa was represented in those proceedings.
PublishinQuestionable Legal Basis for the Land Claim
The parent document cited by Hawa Siaffa as the basis of the claim raises significant legal questions:
The document was allegedly backdated to January 1999 during the height of civil war in Sierra Leone, yet was created in 2007 and 2008.
Ownership is claimed by Ekundice Thomas, who inherited it from his father, who had no verifiable root of title.
These discrepancies undermine the validity of the land claim and raise serious doubts about the foundation of the article’s narrative.
Line by Line Rebuttal of Key Claims
Alleged illegal conversion of private property. No accused individuals were contacted. The article presents allegations as fact without legal evidence or official records.
Presidential instruction to the Chief Minister. The investigation was conducted fully in line with procedural requirements. The claim lacks independent verification.
DIP’s complaints of interference. DIP’s perspective is reported exclusively. No independent sources, Ministry statements, or legal opinions were sought.
Donor funding and public records. References to survey plans and donor projects are unverified, and the article does not confirm whether land designation remained valid.
Alleged unlawful claims by Napoleon Koroma and RPG Robert. No statements were obtained from the accused or independent authorities.
State House meeting and presidential dismay. Based solely on unnamed sources; no minutes or recordings support the claim.
Delegation composition and importance. Speculative; the presence of high-ranking officials does not indicate bias or negligence.
Construction escalation and influence. Unverified; no independent confirmation of ownership, permits, or legality.
Chief Minister’s report non-disclosure. DIP representatives were engaged in the process. Claims of withholding are misleading and premature. The Chief Minister himself has been unfairly accused in the article without being contacted.
Ministry of Lands doctored report allegation. Serious claim without evidence. The Ministry’s findings were part of formal investigative procedures.
Threats and abuse of authority. No statements from the accused or Ministry officials; allegations are uncorroborated.
Armed guards and intimidation. No independent verification; based on anonymous sources.
Exclusion from site meetings. Procedural context not reported; Hawa Siaffa was represented in meetings.
Alleged Ministry of Justice delays. No official confirmation; claims presented as fact are misleading.
Claims of President Bio’s authority being undermined. Opinion presented as fact; unsupported by evidence.
Allegations of threats and SLAPP actions. No documented cases cited.
Use of DIP’s charitable work. Commendable, but using it to bolster unverified claims introduces bias.
Overall presentation. The article exclusively portrays the complainant’s perspective, presenting accusations as fact and violating standards of balance, verification, and fairness.
Additional Observations
The article conflates speculation, opinion, and verified fact repeatedly.
Legal disputes are framed as political conspiracies without evidence.
Emotive language such as grabbed, doctored, and illegal acquisition is used without sourcing.
Independent verification of documents, surveys, or procedural actions is missing.
Guilt is implied based on political position rather than factual evidence.
None of the parties named, including the Chief Minister, Dr David Moinina Sengeh, or the Minister of Lands, Dr Turad Senesie, were contacted for comment before publication. This uneven act raises serious questions about the author’s professionalism and impartiality, suggesting he may have acted on the instructions of the complainant rather than investigating the facts independently.
Final Assessment
Nathaniel Irobi’s publication fails the fundamental tests of professional journalism. The accused parties were not contacted, the investigation and implementation process were ongoing, and claims were presented before official findings were available. Serious allegations of land grabbing, intimidation, and abuse of office remain unverified.
A responsible and balanced account requires:
Engaging all parties involved for comment.
Verifying claims with official records, surveys, and legal documentation.
Reporting ongoing processes before drawing conclusions.
Until these standards are met, the article should be regarded as one-sided and lacking journalistic credibility. Readers are urged to consider the procedural facts and official investigations in forming an informed opinion.
“Serious allegations require serious verification. Publishing claims before investigations are concluded misleads the public.”