Amara Kallon
By Sam Sesay
A political storm is raging over Sierra Leone’s Peace Commission, exposing alarming power struggles within the government and raising questions about the independence of a key institution designed to safeguard national unity. At the center of the controversy is Minister of Political and Public Affairs, Amara Kallon, whose recent actions in dismissing six directors appear to defy both presidential authority and established governance procedures.
The crisis erupted after Kallon publicly defended the terminations, citing a Management and Functional Review (MFR) aimed at “regularising” senior staff positions. He claimed that President Julius Maada Bio had endorsed the recommendations and authorised the Board to terminate the directors, who were then asked to reapply for their positions. Kallon said the directors refused.
Evidence and analysis, however, suggest a different story: a pattern of administrative overreach, manipulation, and political favoritism threatening the independence of the Peace Commission.
The controversy strikes at the heart of President Bio’s 2018 pledge to promote national cohesion. Addressing Parliament, he stated:
│ President Bio pledges to foster national unity through an independent commission.
> “Mr. Speaker, to promote unity and national cohesion, my Government will launch a Presidential Initiative that will be heralded by a national conference on peacebuilding, diversity management, and rebuilding of national cohesion. I therefore announce the creation of an Independent Commission for Peace and National Cohesion to be established by an Act of Parliament.”
Bio’s words were clear: the Peace Commission was to remain independent, free from undue ministerial interference, and a pillar of post-conflict stability. Critics argue Kallon’s recent maneuvers contradict that vision, suggesting a troubling pattern of interference in what should be an autonomous institution.
Investigations highlight several irregularities. The President does not participate in Management and Functional Reviews, which are the domain of the Public Sector Reform Unit (PSRU) under the Office of the President. Kallon’s Ministry has no statutory authority over MFR processes or the Peace Commission, which reports to the Office of the Chief Minister. Yet Kallon has positioned himself at the center of the dismissals and subsequent recruitment process, inserting his ministry into matters outside its jurisdiction.
This suggests that Kallon’s involvement may be less about governance efficiency and more about consolidating control over a body meant to operate independently. His actions risk undermining confidence not only in the Peace Commission but also in the broader governance framework of the country.
Despite termination letters and withheld salaries, the six directors continue reporting for duty at the Peace Commission. Their defiance underscores the legal ambiguity of Kallon’s actions and signals that the President’s authority may have been bypassed. A de facto administrative split has emerged, with directors fulfilling duties while a new recruitment exercise, allegedly orchestrated by Kallon, proceeds. This split reflects a deeper governance challenge: when ministerial overreach clashes with institutional autonomy, public trust is inevitably eroded.
Scrutiny of recent appointments exposes further irregularities. Kallon and former Chief Minister Professor David Francis reportedly orchestrated the hiring of Madam Hawa Sally Samai as a consultant for drafting the Green Paper that established the Peace Commission. Critics contend that the Green Paper was tailored to serve the interests of select individuals rather than the nation, undermining the Commission’s independence from its inception.
│ Bio emphasises that appointments must be merit-based and independent of political favoritism.
> “All appointments in the Commission must be guided by principles of professionalism, merit, and impartiality, ensuring the Commission can operate independently of political influence.”
Allegations have emerged about the Executive Secretary’s qualifications. While the Peace Commission Act requires experience in peacebuilding, claims suggest Madam Samai presented a misleading CV and only pursued theological studies after her appointment. If verified, this raises questions about whether appointments are politically motivated rather than merit-based. Civil society organizations and observers are calling on the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) to investigate both her credentials and the circumstances surrounding the Green Paper.
The PSRU, tasked with conducting the MFR, is also implicated. Its Director sat on the first recruitment interview panel and, while on medical leave in the United States, was also represented during subsequent interviews for recruitment of new directors and deputies. Critics point out that the same body conducting the MFR should not participate in recruitment, creating a clear conflict of interest. Moreover, vacancies were neither advertised nor subjected to standard procedures, suggesting a process designed to favor cronies rather than ensure fair and transparent selection.
│ Bio calls for transparency and adherence to proper procedures in all recruitment processes.
> “It is imperative that all recruitment exercises in government bodies follow established procedures, are transparent, and are devoid of favoritism or undue influence.”
Current Chief Minister Moinina Sengeh is reportedly aligned with these maneuvers, with sources indicating tacit support for consolidating control over the Commission. Investigative sources hint at a network linking successive Chief Ministers to key appointments, suggesting a long-term strategy to entrench loyalists in positions of power and influence.
While full evidence is yet to be published, journalists and civil society groups have vowed to expose these connections. If the Peace Commission becomes dominated by personal loyalty rather than professional merit, its ability to promote national cohesion could be severely compromised.
The controversy threatens public confidence in the Peace Commission and Sierra Leone’s governance. A coalition of human rights journalists and activists is reportedly preparing to raise the matter at the United Nations General Assembly, framing it as an issue of international concern. The Commission, established as a neutral arbiter to mediate disputes and foster unity, risks losing credibility if political allegiances and personal interests dictate its operations.
Calls for decisive action have come from multiple quarters. President Bio is urged to personally intervene, reaffirm the independence of the Commission, and restore order. The Anti-Corruption Commission is called upon to investigate allegations of false qualifications, nepotism, and recruitment irregularities. Parliament is being asked to exercise oversight and ensure the Peace Commission adheres to its mandate. Civil society warns that failure to act decisively may embolden ministers and officials to bypass legal and constitutional mandates, further undermining governance and national cohesion.
At the core of the crisis is a fundamental question: will the Peace Commission serve its mandate of fostering national unity, or will it become a tool for political influence and personal gain? Minister Amara Kallon’s role, coupled with alleged complicity from senior officials, raises serious concerns about the politicization of a body meant to be independent. Until resolved transparently and legally, the Commission’s credibility and the President’s peace agenda remain at risk.
For now, the six directors continue to perform their duties, the Executive Secretary retains her position amid allegations, and the government faces mounting pressure to clarify how an institution designed to unite the nation has become the epicenter of one of Sierra Leone’s most contentious political crises.
Observers also note the broader implication for governance: when independent commissions are politicized, it sets a precedent for undermining other autonomous institutions. Citizens may question whether regulatory bodies, oversight committees, or commissions tasked with safeguarding human rights are similarly vulnerable to ministerial overreach. The Peace Commission, intended as a stabilizing force in a post-conflict society, has thus become a litmus test for institutional independence in Sierra Leone.
As civil society prepares to bring the matter to international attention, the eyes of Sierra Leoneans and the world remain fixed on the Peace Commission, awaiting answers that could determine the future of national cohesion. How President Bio addresses this crisis will signal whether Sierra Leone can uphold the principles of transparency, meritocracy, and accountability, or whether political expediency continues to outweigh national interest.
