Albert David KAMARA: Sierra Leone Telegraph: 5 August 2026:
The Attorney General and Minister of Justice Alpha Sesay’s recent proposal in parliament to impose heavy restrictions on dual‑citizen Sierra Leoneans seeking parliamentary office, 24 months of physical residency, years of NASSIT contributions, five years of tax payments, and a “citizen‑by‑birth only” clause, demands more than casual debate.
It demands constitutional honesty, national introspection, and a sober recognition of the contradictions we are manufacturing in broad daylight. Because Sierra Leone cannot continue opening its hands to receive from the diaspora while tightening its fists to reject their voices. That is not national security. That is national self‑harm.
The Sierra Leone Constitution establishes citizenship as the bedrock of political participation. Once citizenship is confirmed, any additional restrictions must satisfy three constitutional tests: Necessity, Proportionality, and Non-discrimination. The Attorney General’s proposal fails all three.
A 24‑month minimum residency requirement is not a constitutional qualification. It is an administrative invention that disenfranchises Sierra Leoneans who have maintained deep, continuous ties to their homeland. Years of NASSIT subscription is a social security mechanism, not a democratic eligibility criterion.
A five‑year tax history is a civic duty, not a political gatekeeping tool. A citizen‑by‑birth only clause creates a hierarchy of citizenship, full citizens at home, conditional citizens abroad. That is constitutionally indefensible. These restrictions do not strengthen democracy, they shrink it.
Sierra Leone’s diaspora is one of the most economically consequential constituencies in the nation’s modern history. They send hundreds of millions of dollars annually. They sustain families, communities, and even government revenue indirectly. They bring global expertise, networks, and professional exposure that Sierra Leone desperately needs. To over‑condition such a constituency is not only unjust, but also economically irrational.
A nation cannot depend on diaspora remittances for survival and then treat diaspora citizens as political outsiders. That contradiction is not governance; it is hypocrisy dressed in legislative clothing.
Some ruling MPs have attempted to justify these restrictions on “national security grounds.” Constitutionally, this argument collapses under scrutiny. National security concerns must be specific, not vague, evidence‑based, not speculative, and proportionate, not punitive. There is no evidence that diaspora Sierra Leoneans pose a national security threat.
Many have served Sierra Leone with distinction in medicine, law, academia, diplomacy, humanitarian work, and peacebuilding. If national security is the concern, then the positions that genuinely require heightened clearance, President, Vice President, Chief Justice, Speaker, Deputy Speaker, are already appropriately restricted. Parliament, however, is a representative body, not an executive security office.
To invoke national security as a blanket justification is constitutionally weak and democratically dangerous.
Diaspora Sierra Leoneans vote, pay taxes indirectly, own property, and maintain family ties, and contribute to national development. To deny them representation is to deny the nation a portion of its own voice. It is to amputate a vital limb of national identity. A Parliament that excludes diaspora voices is not representative, it is incomplete.
If Parliament wishes to regulate eligibility, it must do so in a manner that respects citizenship equality, avoids economic discrimination, recognizes global mobility, and encourages national participation, not restricts it. Reasonable conditions may include disclosure of dual citizenship, conflict‑of‑interest safeguards, tax compliance at nomination, and verification of ties to Sierra Leone.
But years of NASSIT subscription, five‑year tax history, and 24‑month minimum residency are excessive, exclusionary, and constitutionally disproportionate. These are not safeguards, they are barriers.
If Parliament insists on restrictions, they should apply only to positions where executive power is concentrated, national security is directly implicated, and constitutional continuity is essential. Those positions are already listed: President, Vice President, Chief Justice, Speaker and Deputy Speaker.
Parliamentary membership, however, is a democratic mandate, not an executive security office. To extend executive‑level restrictions to legislative eligibility is constitutionally incoherent.
A nation that welcomes diaspora remittances but rejects diaspora voices is not protecting national security, it is weakening its democracy.
About the author
Albert David Kamara is the editor of the Salone Independent Chronicle
https://thesaloneindependentchronicle.com/#/
Be the first to comment