By Mahmud Tim Kargbo
Friday, 12 June 2026
Allegations are easy to make. Evidence is considerably harder to produce. That simple reality sits at the heart of every serious democracy and remains the standard by which responsible citizens distinguish fact from speculation. It is the principle that protects reputations, safeguards fairness and preserves public trust in national discourse. Those who accuse must prove. Those who allege wrongdoing must substantiate their claims. Those who suggest conspiracy must present evidence capable of withstanding scrutiny. It is precisely this principle that appears most absent from the article titled “FGM or Politics? The Hidden Truth Behind the Attacks on Sierra Leone’s First Lady Dr Fatima Maada Bio.”
The article presents a serious allegation against Chief Minister, Dr David Moinina Sengeh. It invites readers to believe that one of President Julius Maada Bio’s closest political allies is somehow participating in a campaign designed to undermine First Lady, Dr Fatima Maada Bio. Such a claim is not a minor political observation. It is an accusation that carries implications for reputation, trust and public confidence. Yet, the burden imposed by such an allegation is equally serious. Extraordinary claims require evidence. Serious allegations require proof. The article provides neither in any convincing form.
Strip away the emotion, political affiliations and rhetorical flourishes and a fundamental question emerges. What exactly did Dr David Moinina Sengeh do? Which statement did he make that constituted an attack on the First Lady? Which instruction did he issue? Which action did he take? Which decision did he influence? Which verifiable act connects him to the alleged effort to undermine her standing? The article never adequately answers those questions. Instead, readers are presented with assumptions, associations and conclusions that appear to exist independently of demonstrable evidence.
That distinction matters, because democracies are governed by evidence rather than inference. Courts do not convict on inference alone. Independent investigators do not close cases on inference alone. Responsible journalists do not establish facts on inference alone. Yet, much of the argument advanced against the Chief Minister relies not upon what can be demonstrated, but upon what can be inferred. Individuals are grouped together. Relationships are highlighted. Motives are suggested. Conclusions are implied. The gap between inference and proof is where the allegation begins to unravel.
There is another test worth applying. Would this allegation survive outside the arena of politics? Would it withstand examination before an independent investigator tasked with separating evidence from assumption? Would it survive before a disciplinary panel required to establish facts rather than entertain speculation? These questions matter, because standards should not change simply because politics is involved. An allegation unsupported by evidence remains unsupported, whether it appears in a newspaper article, a political speech or a social media post. The forum may change, but the burden of proof does not.
Public life leaves records. Speeches are preserved. Statements are remembered. Conduct is observed over time. Reputations are built through patterns of behaviour rather than isolated moments. When evaluating serious allegations, citizens should therefore examine the public record. In the case of Dr David Moinina Sengeh, that record presents a significant challenge to the accusation being advanced. Nothing in his public conduct suggests hostility towards First Lady, Dr Fatima Maada Bio.
On the contrary, the Chief Minister has consistently treated the First Lady with respect, dignity and public admiration. His respect for her derives first from his well-known admiration for President Julius Maada Bio, whom he has repeatedly described as a leader, mentor and source of political inspiration. It also derives from his recognition of the First Lady’s own contribution to national life. Throughout his years in public service, Dr Sengeh has never cultivated a reputation for personal attacks or political sabotage. Instead, he has generally projected a style of leadership rooted in ideas, innovation and service. His public record points overwhelmingly in the opposite direction from the allegation being advanced.
The accusation becomes even more difficult to sustain when examined against Dr Sengeh’s own public statements. On several occasions he has openly described Dr Fatima Maada Bio as one of the most impactful First Ladies Sierra Leone has ever produced. He has publicly praised her advocacy for women and girls. He has recognised her contribution to elevating Sierra Leone’s profile on important social issues. He has acknowledged the visibility and influence she has brought to national conversations concerning gender and development. These statements are not rumours. They exist within the public record and remain available for scrutiny.
These are not the words of a man seeking to damage another person’s reputation. Nor are they the words of someone quietly orchestrating efforts to undermine a colleague’s standing. Dr Sengeh has built much of his public credibility on a reputation for directness, intellectual honesty and saying publicly what he believes privately. If he genuinely harboured reservations about the First Lady’s role or performance, few who know his public style would expect him to conceal those views behind political intrigue. The allegation therefore asks the public to believe two contradictory things at once. It asks them to believe that a man who repeatedly praises the First Lady in public is simultaneously engaged in a covert effort to diminish her influence behind the scenes. That contradiction remains unresolved, because it is difficult to reconcile with observable reality.
The accusation also sits uneasily alongside the democratic philosophy Dr Sengeh has consistently promoted. Those familiar with his public engagements know that he regularly discourages politics rooted in personal attacks. He has repeatedly challenged young people to compete through ideas, competence, innovation and service. He frequently argues that democratic competition should produce better leadership rather than deeper hostility. He has often maintained that disagreement should not automatically produce enmity. More importantly, he has sought to model those values in public life. Leadership, in his view, should elevate public discourse rather than degrade it.
That philosophy is hardly unique to Sierra Leone. Simon Sinek, writing through https://simonsinek.com, argues that trust remains the foundation upon which lasting leadership is built. John C. Maxwell, through https://www.maxwellleadership.com, has long maintained that leadership is measured by influence, service and the ability to elevate others rather than diminish them. Ronald Heifetz, through https://www.cambridgeleadershipassociates.com, argues that democratic societies function best when disagreement is managed without transforming opponents into enemies. These ideas have endured because they recognise an essential truth. Strong democracies depend upon competition of ideas rather than destruction of character.
The irony is that First Lady, Dr Fatima Maada Bio’s standing requires no artificial enemies to validate it. Her influence was not built through conflict. It was built through visibility, advocacy and sustained public engagement. Her achievements stand on their own merits and require no conspiracy theory to make them significant. Strong public figures derive their influence from what they accomplish rather than from the adversaries they are presumed to possess. Her public profile therefore remains secure on the strength of her own record. That reality makes allegations of hidden sabotage even less persuasive.
The burden of proof is not a technicality. It is civilisation’s defence against injustice. Without it, suspicion becomes evidence, rumour becomes fact and repetition becomes truth. Public discourse then ceases to be a contest of ideas and becomes a contest of accusations. Democratic societies learned long ago the dangers of abandoning evidentiary standards. That lesson remains as relevant today as it has ever been. Fairness requires proof. Justice requires proof. Credibility requires proof.
Today the allegation concerns the Chief Minister. Tomorrow it may concern another public figure. The principle remains unchanged. Public accusations must be tested against evidence. That standard protects allies and opponents alike. It protects governments and critics alike. It protects public officials and private citizens alike. Most importantly, it protects democracy itself.
The article has made its allegation. The burden now rests with those who made it. Evidence must follow accusation. Proof must follow suspicion. Facts must follow narrative. Until that happens, the claim remains precisely what it is today: an allegation. Democracies are not sustained by what people suspect. They are sustained by what people can prove. And in every democracy worthy of respect, the burden of proof belongs not to the accused, but to the accuser.