In what can only be described as a dangerous and deeply troubling escalation, the Projects Fiduciary Management Unit (PFMU) has demonstrated an alarming level of contempt for the Independent Procurement Review Panel (IPRP)—a statutory body created to safeguard the fairness, legality, and transparency of Sierra Leone’s public procurement system. This egregious disregard for institutional authority not only undermines the credibility of the IPRP, but also poses a grave threat to the integrity of public financial management and the trust of donor partners.
The IPRP was established under law to provide independent oversight of procurement activities across public institutions. Its mandate is rooted in accountability—to ensure that procurement decisions are not only compliant with established legal frameworks but also equitable and transparent. However, recent events suggest that the PFMU has chosen to sidestep this oversight in favor of unilateral decision-making that invites suspicion and weakens public confidence.
A particularly disturbing incident centers on the bid evaluation process for the contract involving the supply, installation, and integration of the Bank of Sierra Leone’s Data Center. Multiple bidders filed formal complaints with the IPRP, citing significant irregularities and alleging biased treatment in the evaluation process. These complaints, rather than being addressed with the seriousness they warrant, were met with outright dismissal and disdain by the PFMU leadership.
PFMU Team Lead, Mr. Wai compounded the crisis by brushing aside the findings of the IPRP, invoking the so-called sensitivity of documentation as a shield against scrutiny. This cavalier attitude is not just a breach of protocol—it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding (or worse, a deliberate rejection) of the principles of transparency and accountability that underpin good governance.
By refusing to recognize the authority of the IPRP, the PFMU is not merely engaged in institutional conflict—it is effectively sabotaging Sierra Leone’s procurement ecosystem. This insubordination jeopardizes the fair management of taxpayers’ money and donor contributions, with potentially catastrophic consequences for the credibility of government institutions.
Even more alarming is the Ministry of Finance’s reported move to seek legal advice on whether to withhold sensitive bidding information—an action that suggests a coordinated effort to resist transparency. These maneuvers raise pressing questions: Why is there a reluctance to share information that could clarify the bidding process? Who benefits from this opacity, and more importantly, what precedent does this set for future procurements?
There is growing concern that these actions are aimed at sidelining competitive firms, such as Smart Network Solutions Limited, which by all indications meet the required technical qualifications and can boasts of extensive experience. The specter of favoritism—especially in high-value contracts—must be taken seriously, as it erodes not just trust, but the entire foundation of fair competition.
The broader implications of this defiance are stark. Investors, donors, and suppliers are likely to reconsider their engagement with a procurement system where statutory safeguards can be so blatantly disregarded. The message being sent is clear: due process is optional, and institutional mandates are negotiable. This is an untenable position for any country aspiring to uphold principles of good governance, especially one relying heavily on donor confidence and foreign investment.
It is imperative that this situation is addressed decisively. The Ministry of Finance, IPRP, and international partners must urgently convene to reestablish the supremacy of lawful oversight in all procurement matters. The PFMU must be held to account, and a comprehensive review of its conduct is not only warranted but also necessary.
A failure to act now risks normalizing institutional impunity and fostering a procurement culture driven by opacity rather than integrity. To protect the future of public procurement in Sierra Leone, the country must reaffirm its commitment to legal frameworks, transparent practices, and most importantly, respect for the statutory bodies entrusted with safeguarding its democratic institutions.
The credibility of Sierra Leone’s governance is on the line—and silence is not an option.
