As Sierra Leone’s parliament prepares to return from recess on 31st October 2024, one of its foremost tasks will be to ratify President Julius Maada Bio’s decision to remove the Auditor-General, Lara Taylor-Pearce. This event marks the climax of a protracted and controversial process that has thrown Sierra Leone’s commitment to transparency and accountability into question.
A Shift in the SLPP’s View of the Auditor-General
When President Bio and his Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) were in opposition, Taylor-Pearce’s reports were used as key evidence in their critique of the then ruling All People’s Congress (APC). Indeed, the SLPP’s post-2018 election transition team lauded the Audit Service Sierra Leone (ASSL), referring to it as “probably Sierra Leone’s most effective institution,” and commending Taylor-Pearce’s dynamic leadership. However, the SLPP’s view shifted dramatically once in power, particularly when Taylor-Pearce turned her attention to the Office of the President.
The Medical Trip That Triggered the Clash
Tensions escalated in 2020 when Taylor-Pearce initiated an audit into President Bio’s emergency medical trip to Beirut. Although the trip had been paid for by a private businessman and the presidency reimbursed the $170,000 cost, the Auditor-General questioned the veracity of the expenditure receipts submitted by the Office of the President. President Bio perceived this as an unwarranted probe into his personal affairs, marking the beginning of a fraught relationship.
The Suspension and Investigation
By November 2021, Taylor-Pearce and her Deputy, Tamba Momoh, had been suspended. This suspension was linked to their relentless focus on uncovering overspending and corruption, which had consistently been exposed by ASSL’s reports. The two were accused of “professional misconduct” and “lack of professional performance,” and a Tribunal was convened to investigate.
The process, while seemingly adhering to the constitutional requirement for a judicial tribunal, has been criticised for its lack of fairness and transparency. Sources close to the three-year investigation report that the Tribunal’s findings were marked by numerous “red flags,” including the selective use of evidence and the omission of key testimonies from defence witnesses.
Undermining the Independence of the Audit Service
One of the most troubling aspects of this saga is its implications for the independence of the Audit Service Sierra Leone (ASSL). Although the Auditor-General is constitutionally independent of the executive, the Tribunal has recommended reforms that would effectively undermine this independence. Among these is the recommendation for an “effective mechanism for the monitoring and disciplining of the Auditor-General,” a move that contravenes the very rationale for creating the position in the first place.
While the government needs the support of at least four opposition APC MPs to secure the two-thirds majority required to ratify the removal of Taylor-Pearce, sources indicate that these votes may have already been secured through a combination of pressure and inducements. Even if the motion is rejected, the damage to the institution’s reputation is likely to be long-lasting.
Silence from International Donors and Diplomatic Partners
The international response to the Tribunal’s findings has been muted, despite previous support for the ASSL from institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the United Kingdom. The IMF, which has been pushing for greater scrutiny of public finances as part of its $253 million Extended Credit Facility agreement with Sierra Leone, has yet to comment on the Tribunal’s recommendations. The lack of diplomatic engagement on this issue is likely due to high turnover among diplomatic personnel and a reduced appetite to intervene in Sierra Leone’s internal affairs.
Legal and Procedural Concerns
The Tribunal’s report presents a series of legal and procedural issues that call into question the fairness of the investigation. Central to the accusations against Taylor-Pearce was her decision to seek third-party verification of receipts submitted by the Office of the President as part of a compliance audit. The Tribunal found that this verification was conducted without the auditee’s prior approval, which it deemed a breach of professional conduct. However, Taylor-Pearce and her legal team have pointed out that international auditing standards, particularly those set by the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI), do not require such approval in cases of public audits, especially when fraud is suspected.
Despite this, key expert testimony supporting Taylor-Pearce’s position was ignored or downplayed in the final report. Defence witnesses, including the Director-General of INTOSAI, provided evidence that contradicted the prosecution’s claims, but this was omitted from the Tribunal’s findings. These omissions raise serious concerns about the impartiality of the process and suggest that the Tribunal may have been set up to justify a preordained outcome – the removal of the Auditor-General.
A Case of Political Expediency?
Many critics argue that the Tribunal served as a convenient legal cover for removing a figure who had become politically inconvenient. Taylor-Pearce’s audit reports, which regularly highlighted procurement failings and public financial mismanagement, posed a direct challenge to the government’s narrative of transparency and accountability. Her suspension and the subsequent investigation appear to have been a means of silencing that challenge.
The close involvement of key government figures, such as Chief Minister David Sengeh, who has publicly supported the Tribunal’s findings, further indicates that political motivations may have played a role. Sengeh’s endorsement of the report, particularly its recommendation to curtail the ASSL’s independence, has raised eyebrows, especially given his own political aspirations within the SLPP.
The Impact on Women in Leadership
One particularly concerning aspect of this case is its potential impact on women in leadership positions in Sierra Leone. Lara Taylor-Pearce has long been a role model for women in public service, and her removal, particularly under such contentious circumstances, could have a chilling effect on other women aspiring to leadership roles. The message this case sends is that women in high office can be targeted and removed, even when they are doing their jobs effectively and in accordance with international standards.
A Call for Justice and Transparency
The removal of Lara Taylor-Pearce and Tamba Momoh represents more than just the end of their public service careers—it signals a broader assault on Sierra Leone’s accountability systems. The lack of transparency, the selective use of evidence, and the failure to adhere to due process all point to a deeply flawed investigation. If the government succeeds in ratifying their removal, it will not only undermine the independence of the ASSL but will also set a dangerous precedent for how public officials who challenge the status quo are treated.
There is a pressing need for all Tribunal documents to be released in full, including transcripts, exhibits, and supporting evidence. Parliament, civil society, and the public deserve the opportunity to scrutinise the entire process, not just the final conclusions. Without this level of transparency, the injustice suffered by Taylor-Pearce and Momoh will remain a stain on Sierra Leone’s governance and its commitment to accountability.