Journalist questions selective enforcement, opaque settlements, lifestyle and alleged political ambition at Sierra Leone’s anti-corruption institution
By Albangus
Who watches the institution established to watch everyone else? Who holds accountable the body entrusted with investigating corruption, recovering stolen public resources and prosecuting those who abuse public office?
These questions have returned to the governance debate following criticism of the Anti-Corruption Commission by journalist and social commentator Thomas Josephus Dixon. Speaking on Liberty Online TV, Dixon argued that Commissioner Francis Ben Kaifala should resign or be removed because the ACC has lost the moral credibility required to fight corruption.
Dixon alleged selective enforcement, opaque out-of-court settlements, weak transparency in recovered asset disposal, failure to pursue powerful suspects and concerns about the Commissioner’s lifestyle and political ambition. His sharpest criticism was that the ACC “goes after the flies and allows the hawks to go free.”
The metaphor captures a longstanding concern: junior officials may be arrested and publicly exposed while powerful individuals appear less likely to face prosecution. Dixon argued that investigators should examine the full administrative chain. What did supervisors know? Who authorised the transactions, approved the payments and benefited?
He referred to matters involving National Revenue Authority officials and questioned why some reportedly ended in settlements. He also raised concerns about confiscated property. The public should know how assets were valued, who authorised their disposal, how buyers were selected, how much was realised and where the proceeds were deposited. Without such information, lawful recoveries may breed suspicion.
Dixon also criticised what he characterised as Kaifala’s ostentatious lifestyle. His comments remain allegations, not judicial findings, and do not establish any unlawful acquisition or offence. Nevertheless, the controversy demonstrates why credible asset-verification systems are necessary. An anti-corruption commissioner must act lawfully and preserve confidence in his independence and integrity.
Dixon revisited public expenditure associated with the Office of the First Lady. In 2021, after audit and media concerns, the ACC announced an investigation covering current and former First Ladies. Critics argued that widening the inquiry risked diverting attention from the immediate allegations. The Commission said the broader review was necessary to understand the history and legal framework governing such expenditure.
Dixon further alleged that Kaifala has suggested future political ambition. Such aspiration is not unlawful. However, an anti-graft commissioner must avoid creating a perception of political alignment. If citizens believe prosecutorial decisions reflect party loyalty or personal ambition, the Commission’s credibility will suffer.
The IMF’s 2025 Governance and Corruption Diagnostic Report warned that executive influence over senior appointments could expose accountability institutions to political pressure and recorded allegations of selective investigation and prosecution.
The report examined the ACC’s Non-Prosecution Policy. Under the amended Act, certain matters may be settled through repayment with interest and possible disqualification from public office. The IMF acknowledged recoveries exceeding SLE80 million in money, vehicles and property.
However, prosecutions declined after the policy was introduced in 2022. ACC statistics cited by the IMF show that ten cases reached court in 2020 and fifteen in 2021, falling to two in 2022, two in 2023 and four in 2024. During those five years, the Commission investigated 503 cases. The IMF warned that this imbalance could erode accountability and reinforce perceptions of selective justice, particularly where high-profile matters are settled without judicial scrutiny.
It recommended judicial review of settlements, publication of the Non-Prosecution Policy and an online register of agreements since 2019. It also proposed a transparent, merit-based and participatory appointment process.
The ACC presents a different account, pointing to substantial recoveries, prosecutions involving past and present officials, a conviction rate exceeding 90 per cent in court cases and improved international indicators. These achievements deserve recognition. Yet a conviction rate does not explain why some matters are prosecuted while others are settled, discontinued or unresolved.
Kaifala was appointed in 2018 and reappointed in 2023. Under Section 4 of the Anti-Corruption Act, he cannot be removed merely because a journalist or section of the public demands it. Removal for inability or misconduct requires a tribunal investigation and approval by a two-thirds parliamentary majority. He may resign voluntarily. Dixon’s call is therefore political and moral; lawful removal must rest on evidence and due process.
The issue is bigger than Dixon and Kaifala. The ACC should publish a settlement register stating offences, amounts, recoveries, interest, disqualification periods and asset-disposal procedures. It should explain why one suspect is prosecuted while another receives a settlement and update the public on sensitive investigations.
An anti-corruption commission cannot survive on arrests, press conferences and international recognition alone. Its greatest asset is public trust, which survives only when the watchdog accepts that it, too, must be watched.
Dixon’s allegations are not proof of criminal wrongdoing, but the questions cannot be swept under the carpet. The credibility of Sierra Leone’s anti-corruption campaign will be measured by whether the law pursues flies and hawks with courage, independence and determination.C4D Media invites the Anti-Corruption Commission and Commissioner Francis Ben Kaifala to respond fully to the matters raised in this article
