…As Andrew Lavalie Faces Credibility Scrutiny
By Alusine Daybreak
The Institute for Governance Reform (IGR), headed by Andrew Lavalie, is facing growing public scrutiny following the release of survey findings reportedly identifying Momodu Bangura, popularly known as Jagaban, as the leading potential flagbearer of the All People’s Congress (APC), while Dr. Fatima Maada Bio reportedly emerged as the leading contender in the ruling Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP).
The findings have generated debate among some Sierra Leoneans, particularly those who have questioned the credibility, methodology and accuracy of the reported results. Critics argue that political surveys of this nature must be supported by transparent data, clearly defined research methods and a representative sample of the population if they are to command public confidence.
The controversy has placed Andrew Lavalie and the IGR under increased public scrutiny, with critics demanding answers about how the surveys were conducted, who participated, and whether the findings genuinely reflect the opinions of APC and SLPP supporters across the country.
Jagaban and Fatima Bio Emerge as Reported Front-Runners
According to the reported survey findings, Momodu Bangura, popularly known as Jagaban, is leading the race among potential APC flagbearers, while Dr. Fatima Maada Bio is reportedly ahead among possible SLPP contenders.
The reported results have attracted considerable attention because both political parties are facing questions about their future leadership and the direction they will take ahead of the 2028 general elections.
Within the APC, the flagbearer contest is expected to remain a major political issue as aspirants and their supporters work to consolidate their positions within the party. Similarly, the SLPP is expected to face its own internal discussions about succession, leadership and the selection of a candidate capable of leading the party into the next electoral contest.
However, the publication of survey results identifying particular individuals as leading contenders does not necessarily mean that those individuals will eventually become their respective parties’ flagbearers. The final outcome will depend on each party’s internal processes, the decisions of its delegates and the applicable rules governing the selection of candidates.
For this reason, political observers and members of the public have stressed the importance of distinguishing between survey findings, public popularity and the actual outcome of an internal party election.
Some Citizens Reject the Findings
The reported results have not received universal acceptance. Some Sierra Leoneans have openly questioned the findings, arguing that the survey results do not reflect their understanding of the political situation or the opinions they encounter among party supporters.
Critics have expressed concern that political surveys can sometimes generate controversy when the published results appear inconsistent with the expectations of sections of the electorate. They have called on the IGR to provide more information about the research process so that the public can better understand how the conclusions were reached.
Some critics have also voiced broader concerns about the reliability of political polling in Sierra Leone, arguing that research organisations must demonstrate consistency, impartiality and transparency if their reports are to influence national political discussions.
Nevertheless, public disagreement with a survey does not, by itself, establish that its findings are false. Equally, a published report should not automatically be treated as a definitive representation of public opinion without examining the evidence behind it.
The central issue, therefore, is whether the IGR can provide sufficient information to enable independent observers to assess the strength and reliability of its conclusions.
Calls for Andrew Lavalie to be Transparent
As the public debate continues, attention has increasingly turned towards Andrew Lavalie and the IGR, with critics calling for greater transparency in the organisation’s political research.
Among the key questions that deserve clarification are the number of respondents interviewed, the geographical distribution of the sample, the period during which the survey was conducted, the method used to select respondents and the precise questions put to participants.
It is also important to establish whether the survey measured the opinions of the general public, registered party members, party delegates or self-identified supporters of the two major political parties. These groups can produce significantly different results, particularly in a flagbearer contest where the preferences of party delegates may carry more direct weight than general public popularity.
A credible political survey should also explain how its data were analysed and whether any margin of error or other limitations apply to the findings.
Providing such information would allow Sierra Leoneans to evaluate the report on its merits rather than relying solely on political arguments, personal expectations or competing claims from supporters of different aspirants.
For an organisation involved in governance research, public confidence is particularly important. Transparency in methodology and a willingness to respond to legitimate questions can help distinguish evidence-based research from speculation.
Political Surveys Must Not Be Confused With Flagbearer Elections
The controversy also highlights a broader challenge facing Sierra Leone’s political environment: the tendency for survey findings to become part of the contest between rival political camps.
Supporters of an aspirant who performs well in a survey may celebrate the findings as proof of growing popularity, while supporters of those who rank lower may question the credibility of the research.
However, a survey is only a snapshot of opinion among the people who were interviewed at a particular time. It cannot independently determine the outcome of a future party convention or guarantee that a particular aspirant will secure a flagbearer position.
Political preferences can change as aspirants campaign, party alliances develop, new issues emerge and delegates make their decisions.
Consequently, the reported positions of Jagaban within the APC and Dr. Fatima Maada Bio within the SLPP should be understood within the context of the survey itself, rather than treated as confirmation of their eventual selection as flagbearers.
The IGR’s publication of the findings, if accompanied by clear and verifiable methodology, could contribute to public understanding of the political landscape. Without sufficient methodological details, however, the results may remain vulnerable to criticism and competing interpretations.
A Test of Public Confidence in Governance Research
The debate surrounding the reported survey has broader implications for the role of research institutions in Sierra Leone’s democratic process.
Independent research can help citizens understand public opinion, identify emerging political trends and assess the priorities of the electorate. But these benefits depend heavily on the credibility of the research and the confidence people have in the institutions producing it.
Where doubts arise, the appropriate response is to examine the evidence, ask questions and seek clarification. Research organisations should be prepared to explain their findings, while critics should distinguish between substantiated evidence of methodological problems and disagreement with an outcome they consider unexpected.
For the IGR, the present controversy provides an opportunity to explain the basis of its reported findings and address concerns raised by sections of the public.
A detailed explanation of the survey’s methodology, sample size, geographical coverage and respondent profile would help readers determine what the findings actually demonstrate and what conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from them.
The Debate Continues
As Sierra Leone moves towards the 2028 general elections, political surveys are likely to remain a significant feature of national debate. The APC and SLPP flagbearer contests will attract attention from party members, political observers, civil society organisations and the wider public.
Whether Jagaban or another aspirant ultimately secures the APC flagbearer position, and whether Dr. Fatima Maada Bio or another contender emerges as the SLPP candidate, will depend on the political and party processes that determine those selections.
For now, the reported IGR findings have triggered questions from critics who want greater clarity about the research behind the rankings.
The key question facing Andrew Lavalie and the IGR is whether the organisation can provide enough transparent and verifiable information to help restore confidence among those who remain unconvinced.
Until the methodology and supporting evidence are examined, the reported rankings should be treated as survey findings rather than settled facts about who will become the next flagbearers of the APC and SLPP.
