Olangba Albert Kanu: Sierra Leone Telegraph: 15 April 2026:
As Sierra Leone seeks to expand its security architecture, the real test is whether it strengthens democracy or concentrates power and how it shapes public trust ahead of the 2028 elections.
Citizens must critically examine the growing push for expanded security structures in Sierra Leone. National security is essential, but history shows that multiplying overlapping agencies can shift the focus from protecting citizens to protecting power.
A stark example is SAVAK, the intelligence organization established in Iran in 1957 under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Created with support from CIA and Mossad after the 1953 Iranian coup d’état, it was justified as a tool to protect the state from internal threats.
But how it was created mattered as much as why. Designed as an elite, centralised body operating alongside existing forces, SAVAK held broad, largely unchecked powers. Over time, this “extra layer” became a system of surveillance monitoring opponents, suppressing dissent, and infiltrating civil society. What began as national protection became regime preservation.
This lesson is not abstract. It speaks directly to Sierra Leone’s current moment.
Recent proposals to expand the country’s security architecture including the creation of a State Protection Service (SPS) tasked with providing close protection to national leaders and securing critical state institutions signal the emergence of an additional, specialised layer of authority.
While framed as a response to real threats, such expansion must be interrogated with clarity and caution.
The issue is not whether Sierra Leone needs strong security institutions. It does. The issue is whether expansion is happening with clear safeguards and democratic oversight. When roles overlap and powers are unclear, accountability weakens and weakened accountability creates space for abuse.
Sierra Leone’s post-conflict recovery has been built on restoring trust in state institutions. The police and military have undergone reforms to align with democratic norms, civilian oversight, and respect for human rights. These gains are fragile. Introducing parallel structures without transparency risks reversing them.
History shows that layered security systems, once justified by threats, can gradually evolve into instruments of control. They erode trust, weaken institutional balance and create fear where there should be confidence. The danger is rarely immediate as it grows incrementally through unchecked authority.
As Sierra Leone moves toward the 2028 general elections amid rising political tensions between the main parties, the expansion of security structures must be carefully scrutinised to ensure they are not perceived or used as tools that could influence the political playing field or undermine public confidence in a free and fair democratic process.
Sierra Leoneans should therefore be concerned and not alarmist, but vigilant. The question is not the existence of security agencies, but the intent, design and accountability of new ones being proposed.
Security in a democracy must serve the people, not the other way around. It must be transparent and accountable. Anything less risks undermining the stability it claims to protect.
And let’s just be honest: Sierra Leone’s democracy will not be measured by how many security institutions it builds, but by how well it protects the rights, freedoms and confidence of its people.
Be the first to comment