By Mahmud Tim Kargbo
As President Julius Maada Bio arrives in Antigua and Barbuda for the 2026 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, a familiar question returns to Freetown: what does Sierra Leone gain from the President’s frequent overseas journeys, and what do they cost? The Government’s case is that presidential diplomacy attracts investment, strengthens partnerships and repairs the country’s international standing. Those are legitimate objectives, but after eight years they require public evidence of results and a clear account of the money spent. The Commonwealth’s official programme gives the meeting’s theme as “Accelerating Partnerships and Investment for a Prosperous Commonwealth”: https://thecommonwealth.org/CHOGM/social-media.
The fiscal context makes that scrutiny unavoidable. Sierra Leone’s public debt stood at approximately US$2.264 billion at the end of 2018, according to the Government’s 2019 Annual Progress Report. By June 2025, the Ministry of Finance reported total public debt of NLe72.49 billion, equivalent to about US$3.2 billion. On those published figures, the increase was approximately US$936 million, or 41.4 per cent. This does not suggest presidential travel caused the increase; it shows why every discretionary expense must be judged against the debt burden and competing demands. Sources: https://sldevelopmentencyclopaedia.org/6_doc/6_2/MTNDP_2019_Progrpt.pdf and https://mof.gov.sl/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/First-Half-2025-Public-Debt-Management-Bulleting_for_Publication.pdf.
The pressure is also evident in the cost of servicing public debt. During the first half of 2025, the Government spent NLe5.41 billion on debt service, equivalent to approximately US$238.7 million. That represented 59.94 per cent of domestic budget revenue, whose implied value was approximately US$398.5 million. In the corresponding period of 2024, debt service amounted to NLe3.47 billion, or approximately US$153.5 million, against domestic budget revenue of about US$331.8 million. Debt service therefore consumed a substantially larger share of revenue, rising from 46.26 per cent to 59.94 per cent in one year. These dollar equivalents are calculated from the reported figures and the average exchange rates for the respective periods. Source: https://mof.gov.sl/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/First-Half-2025-Public-Debt-Management-Bulleting_for_Publication.pdf.
No serious assessment should pretend that a President can conduct foreign relations from behind the gates of State House. Investment promotion, bilateral negotiations, regional security, trade access and participation in multilateral institutions are legitimate functions of executive leadership. Sierra Leone’s international image matters, and presidential engagement can open doors that routine diplomacy cannot. Yet a visit is an instrument, not an achievement. The relevant test is whether it produces financing that is disbursed, investment that is implemented, trade that expands, or partnerships that deliver measurable public benefit. Diplomatic visibility is an activity; economic improvement is the outcome.
The available public accounts also show why precision matters. The International Monetary Fund’s 2026 programme review records government-wide travel expenditure of US$19.6 million in 2025: US$12.8 million in ordinary travel and US$6.8 million in other travel, including charters. It projects US$9.7 million for 2026. The same table records US$48.6 million for embassies and high commissions. These are figures for government as a whole, not the President’s personal travel bill. They nevertheless establish that overseas travel is a material budget item requiring a breakdown by the Presidency, ministries, agencies and other public institutions. Source: https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/002/2026/168/article-A001-en.xml.
There is also a question of institutional purpose. Sierra Leone maintains diplomatic missions and appoints ambassadors to represent its interests abroad. They cannot replace every form of presidential engagement: some negotiations and summit-level decisions properly require the Head of State. But neither should presidential travel routinely duplicate work that resident missions can perform. Ambassadors should sustain relationships, prepare agreements, follow up commitments and report outcomes. The President’s presence should be reserved for occasions when it adds demonstrable value, not merely visibility.
This is not a standard invented by critics after the fact. The Sierra Leone People’s Party’s 2018 New Direction Manifesto identified overseas travel as an area requiring expenditure control. In section 6.3, “Measures to Control Expenditure”, under “Reduce Cost on Travelling”, it estimated that presidential attendance at UN, AU and ECOWAS summits cost more than Le4 billion on each occasion. It also estimated that overseas travel by ministries, departments and agencies exceeded Le250 billion, or more than US$30 million, annually. Those were manifesto estimates, not independently audited totals. The document promised smaller delegations, quarterly reports comparing travel expenditure with expected outcomes, greater use of Sierra Leone’s diplomatic missions where appropriate, and a standardised travel policy covering tickets, per diems and class of travel. Source: https://www.sierra-leone.org/Docs/SLPP-Manifesto2018.pdf.
The Constitution recognises both the importance and the limits of presidential responsibility. Section 40 makes the President Head of State and assigns responsibility for relations with foreign states, including receiving envoys, appointing principal representatives abroad and conducting treaty-related functions. That provides a constitutional basis for presidential diplomacy; it does not confer a blank cheque for unlimited travel. Section 52 provides for the Vice-President to perform presidential functions when the President is absent, while section 53 allows executive authority to be exercised through ministers and other public officers. Public expenditure, meanwhile, remains subject to parliamentary authorisation and the constitutional provisions governing the Consolidated Fund, public debt, loans and audit. Source: https://www.parliament.gov.sl/constitution-of-sierra-leone.html.
The central weakness in the debate is the absence of a readily accessible, consolidated public account of the President’s overseas journeys since 2018: dates, destinations, delegation size, purpose, total cost, funding source and outcomes. Without it, citizens cannot distinguish necessary diplomacy from avoidable expense. The Presidency and Ministry of Finance should publish a trip-by-trip register and quarterly reports that separate presidential travel from government-wide expenditure. Each report should identify the cost of flights, accommodation, allowances, security and logistics, while recording the agreements secured and whether they have been implemented.
The issue, ultimately, is not whether Sierra Leone should engage with the world. It must. The President should travel when the occasion warrants it. The question is whether each journey is proportionate, necessary and capable of producing a public return that justifies its cost. In a country managing substantial debt-service obligations and limited fiscal space, restraint is not isolationism; it is responsible government. The Presidency should be able to show not simply where the President has gone, but what Sierra Leone has gained.