By Christian.conteh@awokonewspaper.sl
Freetown, SIERRA LEONE: The Ministry of Mines and Mineral Resources is facing criticism over a lease agreement with Kingho Railway and Port Company Ltd., after an audit revealed that the deal was not ratified by Parliament. This oversight violates both Section 118(2) of Sierra Leone’s Constitution and Section 15 of the Public Debt Management Act, 2011, sparking concerns over transparency and legality.
Central to the controversy is a staggering US$5.27 million in tax exemptions granted to Kingho as part of the lease agreement. The failure to secure parliamentary approval has raised alarms about whether these exemptions are legally enforceable, leading to calls for immediate review.
Sierra Leone’s Constitution clearly mandates that agreements involving public financial obligations must be ratified by Parliament. The Public Debt Management Act, 2011, further reinforces this requirement, ensuring legislative oversight of all deals with fiscal implications.
By bypassing Parliament, the Ministry has potentially breached both legal frameworks, casting doubt on the validity of the tax exemptions and raising questions about the decision-making process. “The absence of parliamentary scrutiny makes this agreement problematic in terms of enforceability,” said a financial governance expert.
At the heart of the issue are the $5.27 million in tax exemptions granted to Kingho through the unratified agreement. Legal experts warn that without proper parliamentary approval, these exemptions may not be binding, leaving the government in a precarious legal position.
“If the agreement was not subjected to Parliament, it raises serious concerns about the accountability and transparency of the process,” the expert continued. The potential fallout could include legal challenges or difficulties in enforcing the exemptions if the agreement is deemed invalid.
The situation has reignited ongoing concerns about transparency and governance in Sierra Leone’s management of public resources. Critics argue that failing to secure parliamentary approval for such a significant financial deal is symptomatic of deeper issues within the Ministry of Mines and its handling of public contracts.
Civil society organizations and governance watchdogs have swiftly called for an urgent review of the agreement, stressing that parliamentary ratification is not just a procedural formality but a vital safeguard for protecting public interest.
“The Constitution and public finance laws are designed to protect national interests. Sidestepping these processes undermines public trust and opens the door for potential abuse,” said a prominent civil society leader.
These organizations are demanding that the Ministry clarify the status of the agreement and, if necessary, resubmit it to Parliament for proper review. Such actions, they argue, would restore public confidence and ensure that public funds are managed in a lawful, transparent manner.
The Ministry of Mines has yet to provide a clear response to the mounting concerns. It remains uncertain whether they plan to address the oversight or amend the agreement to comply with legal requirements. As public scrutiny intensifies, the Ministry faces growing pressure to act decisively to resolve the issue.
This case highlights the crucial importance of adhering to established legal frameworks in the management of public resources. Parliament’s role in approving agreements with significant financial implications is not just a legal requirement, but a necessary measure to ensure accountability, transparency, and the protection of national interests. CC/31/12/2024
