By Alpha Amadu Jalloh
Author of “Monopoly of Happiness: Unveiling Sierra Leone’s Social Imbalance”
Recipient of the Africa Renaissance Leadership Award 2025
In recent weeks, Sierra Leone has been gripped by a political and economic debacle that reveals far more than a simple corporate dispute. The confrontation between Koidu Holdings, one of the nation’s major mining investors, and the First Lady of Sierra Leone, Madam Fatima Jabbie Bio, has laid bare the troubling intersection of power, impunity, media manipulation, and economic insecurity.
The reported threats from Koidu Holdings to suspend operations or take legal action against the First Lady’s interference in its affairs should be an alarm bell to every citizen and policymaker. In any serious democracy, the spouse of the head of state, an unelected figure with no constitutional mandate, would not wield such aggressive and direct influence over key economic players and senior government officials. But Sierra Leone seems to be spiraling into a dangerous space where the First Lady appears more powerful than most elected leaders, behaving as though she were co-president.
Even more disturbing is the explosive accusation by Koidu Holdings that Madam Fatima Bio allegedly solicited a bribe from the company. Such a claim, coming from a foreign investor operating in the heart of Sierra Leone’s extractive industry, is damning and should have immediately triggered an independent investigation. The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), charged with rooting out corruption at all levels, had both the moral and legal obligation to act swiftly and transparently. But instead of initiating a probe, the commission rushed to defend the First Lady, as if its primary duty is to protect the powerful rather than uphold the law.
This failure to investigate such a serious allegation sends a devastating message to both the local population and the international community: that some individuals are above the law and shielded by political connections. In a functional democracy, no one, no matter their status or proximity to power, should be immune from scrutiny, especially when faced with corruption allegations.
Those now trying to paint themselves as defenders of the First Lady under the guise of patriotism must themselves be viewed with suspicion. True patriotism is not blind loyalty to individuals but steadfast allegiance to the Constitution, the rule of law, and the principles of justice. Defending the First Lady in the face of credible allegations, without facts, without investigation, is not patriotic. It is corrupt. It is complicit. It is an affront to the suffering masses who have lost faith in institutions meant to protect them.
Rather than address the content of Koidu Holdings’ concerns with the seriousness they deserve, the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), through its commissioner, made what can only be described as a politically motivated faux pas. Within hours of the company’s release, the ACC appeared to take sides in a matter involving the First Lady, issuing a reaction that gave the impression of shielding her rather than seeking justice or neutrality.
This reaction undermines public trust in our institutions. The ACC is supposed to be an independent body tasked with rooting out corruption and ensuring all public figures, elected or otherwise, are held accountable. But in this instance, it seemed to prioritize political loyalty over national duty. The mere fact that the commission hastened to speak in favor of the First Lady while ignoring the gravity of a public accusation from a major investor reveals a larger systemic rot where loyalty to personalities trumps fidelity to the rule of law.
What we are witnessing is not an isolated incident but part of a broader trend of overreach by Mrs. Fatima Bio. From directing ministers to dismissing protocol at national events to claiming ownership of major government initiatives like “Hands Off Our Girls,” the First Lady has acted with a level of executive influence that no unelected official should ever hold.
It is one thing to be an active First Lady advocating for causes; many around the world do so. It is another thing entirely to act as though one were a co-president. This blurring of lines undermines the constitutional structure of governance. Ministers should answer to the President and Parliament, not the President’s wife.
Her behavior sets a dangerous precedent. It suggests that power in Sierra Leone is not grounded in constitutional roles but in personal proximity to the presidency. That perception alone erodes investor confidence, weakens institutional integrity, and fosters an atmosphere of intimidation and lawlessness. No investor wants to operate in a country where contracts can be overridden by the will of an unelected spouse.
For a country like Sierra Leone, whose economy depends heavily on foreign direct investment (FDI) and natural resource exploitation, the fallout from this controversy is deeply damaging. Koidu Holdings is one of the largest private investors in Sierra Leone’s mining sector. Its willingness to publicly challenge the First Lady speaks volumes about the seriousness of the interference and the fear that such actions could threaten their investment.
Investors are watching. And what they see is chaos.
Why would any serious investor risk capital in a country where their operations can be dictated or disrupted by someone who holds no office, answers to no electorate, and is not bound by constitutional limitations? When the business climate becomes hostage to personal egos and informal power structures, economic stagnation is inevitable. Investors will flee. Jobs will disappear. Local development projects will collapse. And who suffers most? The ordinary Sierra Leonean struggling to feed their family and educate their children.
Equally disturbing is the conduct of a section of Sierra Leone’s media landscape. Rather than interrogate the facts, hold power to account, and inform the public with neutrality, some journalists and bloggers, either on the First Lady’s payroll or seeking her favor, have instead chosen to vilify Koidu Holdings, attack dissenting voices, and hero-worship Fatima Bio as some infallible national treasure.
This form of journalism is not only unethical but also dangerous. It replaces truth with propaganda and weaponizes media platforms to serve personal interests. These bloggers and journalists abandon their sacred duty to the public and instead become agents of distortion. In doing so, they contribute to the erosion of democratic accountability and press freedom.
This trend is particularly problematic in a fragile democracy like Sierra Leone, where the media plays a critical role in shaping public opinion and safeguarding democracy. When reporters become sycophants, when investigative journalism is replaced by public relations for the powerful, the nation suffers.
Let it be said clearly: Madam Fatima Bio is not above the law. She is not elected. She has no constitutional powers to summon ministers, dictate policy, or interfere in contractual matters. Her title, “First Lady,” is ceremonial and symbolic, not executive. Her role is to support her husband and the nation, not to co-govern, intimidate, or control.
The dangerous illusion of her being some kind of co-president must be dismantled before it becomes normalized. The office of the presidency must be respected as one with clear constitutional boundaries. Allowing the First Lady to act as a de facto authority figure in matters of governance only deepens public cynicism and fosters authoritarianism.
Furthermore, public officials must find the courage to resist such overreach. Ministers must stop cowering before the First Lady. Institutions must remember that their loyalty is to the Constitution, not to individuals. And civil society must rise to demand transparency, lawfulness, and decorum from all those in or around power.
The implications of the Koidu Holdings incident are profound. It is not just a fight between a mining company and the First Lady; it is a national moment of reckoning. It forces us to ask serious questions about governance, impunity, and the role of unelected individuals in state affairs.
If Sierra Leone is to develop economically, socially, and politically, it must strengthen its institutions and uphold the rule of law. It must reject personality cults and return to constitutionalism. The President must ensure that all those within his orbit, including his wife, understand and respect the boundaries of power.
Investors will not come to a country where their assets are at the mercy of palace politics. Citizens will not respect institutions that bow to unelected influencers. And Sierra Leone will not prosper if it continues to allow political theatrics to overshadow good governance.
The silence of Parliament on this issue is telling. Where are the voices of our representatives? Where is the leadership of the majority and opposition parties? Who will stand up for the Constitution when it is being silently shredded?
Fatima Bio must retreat to the role of befitting a First Lady: dignified, supportive, and charitable, but not authoritative. Her activism is welcome, but it must not spill into statecraft. She must remember that the people elected Julius Maada Bio, not Fatima Bio.
The future of Sierra Leone depends on a strong economy, free institutions, and the rule of law. We cannot afford to exchange these for showmanship, favoritism, and reckless ambition.
The time has come for a serious national conversation about the role of unelected figures in governance. If left unaddressed, this pattern of interference and media complicity will not only destabilize our democracy, it will bury our hopes for progress.
Let Sierra Leone be governed by law, not by the whims of the powerful.
