By Mahmud Tim Kargbo
Thursday, 12 June 2025
On 4 June 2025, Koidu Holdings Ltd, a foreign-owned diamond mining firm, long plagued by controversy in Sierra Leone, issued a combative letter to the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), accusing Commissioner Francis Ben Kaifala of unlawfully freezing its GT Bank account and targeting the First Lady, Fatima Maada Bio, with an array of unsubstantiated allegations.
What reads as a corporate grievance quickly reveals itself as a dangerous cocktail of misinformation, misogyny and legal defiance. Koidu Limited’s letter reflects less a defence of lawful business practice and more of a public relations gambit to evade scrutiny, discredit national institutions and manipulate the court of public opinion.
This article offers a point-by-point rebuttal of Koidu Limited claims, anchored in legal fact, institutional independence and the sovereign rights of the Republic of Sierra Leone.
- The “Victim” Narrative Is a Smokescreen:
Koidu Limited claims that the ACC’s freeze on its GT Bank account was designed to “destroy” the company. Yet this claim is fundamentally flawed. Under Section 95 of the Anti-Corruption Act, 2008 (as amended), the Commission is empowered to:
“The Commission may, where it has reasonable grounds to believe that any property is the subject matter or evidence of an offence under this Act, issue an order prohibiting the person by whom the property is held from disposing of or otherwise dealing with the property…”
https://www.anticorruption.gov.sl/Files/ANTI%20CORRUPTION%20ACT,%202008%20-%20CONSOLIDATED.pdf
This power is triggered by reasonable suspicion, not conviction, and is preemptive by design to prevent the concealment or dissipation of assets. No prior notice is legally required.
The claim that this constituted corruption or a “bogus investigation” is not only defamatory, but reveals a failure to understand the standard tools used by anti-corruption bodies worldwide:
UK Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/29/contents
Nigeria’s EFCC Powers
https://efccnigeria.org/efcc/about-efcc/powers-of-the-commission
- Allegations Against the First Lady: A Sexist Diversion:
The letter attacks First Lady Fatima Maada Bio, claiming she “siphoned public funds”, “globetrots in a private jet” and “walks hand-in-hand” with the Commissioner, implying a personal influence over the ACC.
There is no constitutional, financial or statutory link between the Office of the First Lady and the ACC. The Commission is a fully independent institution established by Law:
“There is hereby established a body to be known as the Anti-Corruption Commission, which shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession.”
https://www.anticorruption.gov.sl/Files/ANTI%20CORRUPTION%20ACT,%202008%20-%20CONSOLIDATED.pdf
Commissioner Kaifala’s prosecution record across political lines confirms the Commission’s independence.
- IMF and World Bank Allegations: Fabricated and Misleading:
Koidu Limited’s letter alleges that the IMF and World Bank have “ceased all funding” to Sierra Leone due to corruption involving $67 million in “ghost projects”.
This is false. As of June 2025:
IMF ECF Programme (April 2025 Country Report)
https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/SLE
World Bank Development Portfolio in Sierra Leone
https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/projects-list?lang=en&countrycode=SL
Neither institution has issued a statement accusing the ACC or the First Lady of wrongdoing, nor have they withdrawn support based on these claims.
- Transparency International’s Index: Misused and Misleading:
Koidu Limited cites Sierra Leone’s performance in the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), arguing this justifies distrust in the ACC.
But the CPI is a perception tool, not an investigative audit. Under current leadership, Sierra Leone has held steady and even shown progress:
“Sierra Leone scored 34 out of 100 in 2023, maintaining its position at 108 out of 180 countries.”
https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2023/index/sle
This shows consistent enforcement. In fact, Transparency International encourages exactly the kind of action Koidu Limited objects to: timely investigations, financial oversight and independent anti-corruption bodies.
- Disrespecting the Judiciary: A Colonial-Era Tactic:
Koidu Limited states its lawyers will pursue the matter in a legal system “independent of the Sierra Leone judiciary”. This is an affront to Sierra Leone’s sovereignty and legal framework.
“The judicial power of Sierra Leone shall be vested in the Judiciary of which the Chief Justice shall be the head.”
https://www.sierra-leone.org/Laws/constitution1991.pdf (Section 120(1))
If Koidu Limited believes it was wronged, it has every right to seek judicial review within Sierra Leone’s legal system. Ignoring this route, while casting aspersions on the judiciary, is disingenuous and inflammatory.
- Lawful Detention Misrepresented as Intimidation:
Koidu Limited claims that a senior employee was detained “without credible evidence” and “threatened”. However, the individual was questioned and released without charge. This is lawful and common in financial investigations.
If there were procedural violations, they could be challenged in court. But framing routine inquiries as intimidation is a strategy to deflect rather than address the core investigation.
- Koidu Limited Record: The Real Risk to Investment:
Koidu Limited accuses the government of creating a “hostile business environment”. However, their own record suggests otherwise:
Allegations of labour exploitation.
Environmental degradation.
Poor reinvestment in affected communities.
Tax avoidance and lack of transparency.
See relevant regional context:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/02/04/west-africa-mining-communities
Law-abiding investors have no cause for concern. It is opacity, not oversight, that deters ethical investment.
- The ACC Is Upholding the Law. Koidu Limited Is Undermining It
To summarise:
The ACC acted within its powers under the Anti-Corruption Act.
No legal obligation exists to notify suspects before freezing accounts.
The First Lady holds no sway over ACC operations.
IMF and World Bank support remains in place.
Sierra Leone’s Courts are the proper forum for legal challenges.
Koidu’s complaints are laced with misinformation, sexism and entitlement.
“Every person in Sierra Leone is entitled to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms of the individual… and shall be subject to the same legal duties.”
https://www.sierra-leone.org/Laws/constitution1991.pdf (Section 27)
There are no special rules for foreign corporations.
Editor’s Note: When contacted, a representative of the ACC reaffirmed:
“No amount of pressure, foreign or domestic, will derail our duty to the people of Sierra Leone.”
(Not published online, quote obtained directly from ACC office.)