By Saikujohn Barrie
Concerns have been growing across Africa regarding a proposed U.S. Health Compact introduced during the Trump administration, a policy intended to replace certain USAID health‑sector funding.
A recent video featuring the President of Ghana has brought renewed attention to the issue, as he explained why his government refused to sign the agreement.
According to his account, the compact demanded access to Ghana’s national pathogen profile, the medical records of Ghanaian citizens, and—most alarmingly—required that any medicines or medical products brought into the country by the United States should not be inspected by Ghana’s Food and Drugs Authority.
This, I think, is equivalent to Sierra Leone’s Pharmacy Board or Standards Bureau being stripped of its regulatory authority.
Such a condition raises serious questions about sovereignty, public health safety, and the transparency of foreign medical imports.
The most troubling aspect of the compact is the insistence that national regulatory bodies must not inspect U.S.-supplied medical products.
Regulatory inspection exists to protect citizens from counterfeit drugs, expired medicines, unapproved vaccines, or products that fail to meet national standards.
If a foreign government insists that its medical shipments must bypass local safety checks, it is reasonable for citizens to ask what exactly is being imported and why inspection is being prohibited.
This lack of clarity is precisely why many African governments have rejected the compact.
At present, there is no publicly available evidence that Sierra Leone has signed or accepted this agreement. However, there has also been no official public statement rejecting it.
This silence makes it necessary for civil society organizations, journalists, and the wider public to demand clear answers from the Ministry of Health and Sanitation and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Sierra Leoneans deserve to know whether such a compact was proposed, discussed, or declined, and whether any negotiations took place that could affect national health sovereignty or citizens’ medical data.
Several African countries have already rejected the U.S. Health Compact due to concerns about data privacy, national security, and public health regulation. These include Ghana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Uganda, Namibia, and Botswana.
Their governments argued that the compact violated national laws on data protection and undermined the authority of domestic health regulators.
Some also noted that no foreign government should have unrestricted access to national pathogen information or citizens’ medical records.
Given the seriousness of the issues involved, Sierra Leone’s civil society organizations and media institutions must urgently request full disclosure from the government.
Citizens have the right to know whether Sierra Leone was approached with this compact, whether discussions took place, and whether any commitments were made.
Transparency is essential, especially when an agreement touches on national health systems, medical safety, and the privacy of citizens’ medical information.
Sierra Leoneans deserve clarity. Until the government provides a definitive statement, public concern remains justified.
It is the responsibility of civil society, the press, and elected representatives to ensure that no agreement compromising national sovereignty or public health is accepted without full public awareness and scrutiny.
I rest my case.