By Eliasu Jalloh (USA)
In politics, timing is often the loudest statement a government can make. For years, every passenger arriving in or departing from Sierra Leone through Freetown International Airport has been required to pay a mandatory US$25 airport security fee. The charge was introduced under the justification of strengthening aviation security through passenger data management and modern security technology.
But beyond the official explanation lies a question that has troubled many Sierra Leoneans, travelers, and members of the diaspora: why was a fee imposed in United States dollars in a country whose official currency is the Leone?
This is not just a question about payment methods. It is a question about economic policy, national confidence, and consistency in governance.
At a time when the government has repeatedly spoken about strengthening the Leone, reducing inflation, and encouraging citizens to have confidence in the national currency, imposing a mandatory foreign currency charge at one of the country’s most important gateways sends a conflicting message.
If the Leone is strong enough to serve as the currency of everyday transactions for Sierra Leoneans, why is a government agency demanding dollars from citizens and visitors entering and leaving the country? Why was the fee not calculated and collected in Leones at the prevailing exchange rate?
Foreign currency charges are not neutral. They create additional demand for scarce foreign exchange and reinforce the perception that the Leone is not trusted even by the very institutions responsible for promoting it.
A government cannot ask citizens to believe in the Leone while creating policies that elevate the dollar as the preferred currency for public charges.
Then came the announcement that the government had suspended the collection of the $25 fee, effective July 6, pending a contract review and an independent special audit by Audit Service Sierra Leone.
Naturally, many welcomed the suspension. After years of complaints about the fee, any move toward transparency and accountability deserves attention.
However, the timing of this decision raises uncomfortable questions.
Why now?
Why after years of collecting this fee did the government suddenly decide that the arrangement required review? Why did this decision come at a time when Sierra Leone is preparing to host the ECOWAS Mid-Year Summit in 2026, bringing regional leaders, diplomats, and international observers into the country?
The government has stated that the suspension is connected to a contract review and audit. However, citizens are entitled to ask whether this is a genuine governance reform or simply a temporary adjustment to avoid charging international guests during a major diplomatic event.
For years, ordinary travelers paid the fee. Sierra Leoneans in the diaspora paid the fee. Business travelers paid the fee. Tourists paid the fee. Yet there was no urgent announcement of suspension, no public debate about its impact, and no immediate call for an independent audit.
But when the country is preparing to welcome regional leaders, suddenly the policy requires reconsideration.
That creates the uncomfortable impression that some policies receive attention only when they affect international guests, not when they affect ordinary citizens.
The issue is not merely $25. The issue is whether government policies are designed around public interest or political convenience.
A transparent government should have no difficulty answering basic questions:
How much revenue has this fee generated since its introduction?
What specific security improvements resulted from the charge?
Was the contract with Securiport (SL) Limited providing value for money?
Why was the fee denominated in US dollars instead of the country’s local currency?
These are not political attacks. They are legitimate questions in any democracy where citizens expect accountability from those who manage public resources.
Sierra Leone wants to attract tourists, investors, and international partners. But international confidence does not come only from hosting summits and presenting a positive image. It comes from building institutions that operate transparently and fairly every day.
The government now has a chance to prove that this suspension is not a public relations exercise connected to the ECOWAS summit, but a genuine commitment to reform.
The audit must not disappear into bureaucracy. The findings must be made public. The contract must be examined openly. In addition, if the fee returns, the government must explain why and under what conditions.
Because the real question facing Sierra Leone is not just about a $25 airport charge.
It is about whether governance decisions are made because they are right for the people or because the world is watching. A country cannot demand confidence in its currency, its institutions, and its leadership while leaving citizens to question why accountability only arrives when international attention does.
