By: Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara, Esq.
The recent gazetting of 30 Establishment Orders by the government, formally creating two new districts, Bandajuma and Kpanguima, and eight new councils, has ignited significant controversy. Although the government frames the move as a necessary step toward bringing governance closer to the people, but my contention is that the process has been marred by legal ambiguity, political manipulation, and serious practical and social consequences.
The fundamental criticism focuses on the legal foundation and procedural fairness of the orders. The creation of new districts lacks a solid legal and demographic justification. It is my argument, that the move is premature because it is not based on credible, validated census data, which has not yet been conducted.
The government’s failure to engage in meaningful public consultation is another troubling factor. The decision to divide the capital was made without any consultation whatsoever with the people for whom it will have the biggest impact. The All People’s Congress (APC) has similarly accused the government of pursuing administrative restructuring “without transparency, data, or proper community engagement.”
Yet, the most politically charged critique is that the redistricting is a tool for electoral manipulation rather than administrative efficiency. We strongly condemn the plan as undemocratic, illegal, and politically motivated, and a dangerous provocation aimed at manipulating the electoral system for the ruling Sierra Leone People’s Party’s (SLPP) benefit.
In any event, a growing political view suggests that the creation of new districts and the division of Freetown are designed to create more parliamentary seats and local government positions in areas that could favor the SLPP.
To be fair, it is worth noting that redistricting is not new. Falaba and Karene Districts, were created in 2017. However, those redistricting decisions were duly informed by the controlling census at the time, the 2015 Census.
Unlike the Establishment Orders creating Bandajuma and Kpanguima districts, (decisions not informed by census data or consultation with affected communities), the earlier creation of Falaba and Karene districts was based on the 2015 census. That census recorded populations of 205,353 for Falaba and 285,546 for Karene.
However, a worrying and growing sentiment is that the creation of Bandajuma and Kpanguima districts, is less about development and more about seeking to manipulate electoral outcomes.
Beyond the political arena, the decisions to establish the new districts of Bandajuma and Kpanguima, raise serious concerns about their practical impact on governance, communities, and the economy. There are fears that redrawing boundaries could fragment communities and unsettle historic land arrangements. The Chief Minister himself has acknowledged “tensions arising from recent de-amalgamation processes, particularly disputes over land ownership, boundaries, and relations among neighbouring paramount chiefs.”
Furthermore, the creation of multiple new councils, including splitting Freetown into two city administrations and creating three new rural councils, is expected to significantly increase administrative costs. Each new council requires its own mayor or chairman, administration, and budget. This would demand substantial financial resources at a time when the government has been unable to meet its existing financial commitments. Inevitably, the division is seen as creating additional management and coordination challenges rather than addressing the core issue of fragmented urban management mandates.
Moreover, caution must be raised, that this move could introduce a vengeful cycle in district delimitation, repeating itself whenever, a new government is formed. Thereby creating a worrying prospect for long term stability. More importantly, it is a warning that these actions could pave the way for de facto one-party system of government.
In the final analysis, while the government presents the new districts and councils as a decentralization initiative, the redistricting orders are deeply contentious. Lifting the veil exposes a process perceived as legally questionable, politically motivated, and socially and economically risky, with many stakeholders calling for a more transparent, evidence based, and consultative approach, to any such fundamental changes to our country’s administrative map.