Mira Dumbuya: Sierra Leone Telegraph: 17 March 2026:
I have read and heard several views about the Tripartite Agreement not being legally binding, with some even describing it as “A Gentleman’s Agreement.” That description alone raises an important question: What does it really mean when a government enters into a gentleman’s agreement?
Based on that, let me share my one cent view on the nature, weight, and implications of such an agreement, especially when the party involved is not an individual or a private institution, but a government supposedly entrusted with public authority.
A gentleman’s agreement, by definition, is informal. It may not carry the force of law, but it carries something governments should value even more: the force of integrity, credibility, and moral responsibility.
When a government gives its word, whether written, unwritten, formal, or informal, it is not merely making a private promise. It is making a commitment in the presence of the nation and the international community.
So the real issue is not only whether such an agreement is legally binding. The deeper question is: What does it say about a government if it cannot keep its own word unless the law compels it? That is the lens through which I offer my reflections.
What Is a Gentleman’s Agreement?
A gentleman’s agreement is an informal understanding, often unwritten, based on trust, honour, and mutual respect rather than legal enforceability. It relies on the integrity of the parties involved rather than the coercive power of law.
Such agreements may be verbal, symbolic (e.g., a handshake), or implied through conduct, but they lack the formal elements required for a legally binding contract.
Is a Gentleman’s Agreement Legally Binding? Generally, the answer to that, is No.
A gentleman’s agreement is not legally binding because it lacks the formal requirements of a contract, such as clear terms, intention to create legal relations, and enforceability mechanisms. (To my own understanding, the Tripartite has all of these).
Even when a gentleman’s agreement is oral, courts typically require evidence of intent to be legally bound. Gentleman’s agreements, by definition, avoid such intent.
Why Is Gentleman’s Agreement Not Legally Binding?
- Lack of formal documentation: Gentleman’s agreements are usually unwritten and informal. (The Tripartite Agreement does have formal documentation, signed and witnessed by the International Community. This further begs the question, is the tripartite agreement still a gentleman’s agreement?)
- No intention to create legal obligations: They rely on honour, not law.
- Ambiguity of terms: Without clear, enforceable terms, courts cannot adjudicate disputes.
- Historical and conceptual nature: They are explicitly defined as non-binding understandings.
Why Should a Government Keep Such a Promise? (If The Tripartite Agreement Is Not Legally Binding).
Even though a gentleman’s agreement is not enforceable in court, a government has political, ethical, and governance-related obligations to honour it.
Legitimacy and Public Trust
Governments derive authority from the trust of the people. Breaking formal or even informal commitments erodes:
- Credibility
- Moral authority
- Public confidence in leadership
A government that cannot keep its word, even informally, signals unreliability.
Political Stability and Social Cohesion
Gentleman’s agreements often arise in sensitive political contexts, peace negotiations, power-sharing, electoral reforms, or inter-party cooperation. Usually, during their negotiations, things are agreed on that are not written and so seen as gentleman’s agreement, but when they result in an agreement that ends with signatures and with witnesses, honour makes that agreement binding.
Breaking them can trigger political crises, deepen polarization, undermine national unity, and create suspicion among stakeholders.
International Reputation
Governments operate in a global environment where reputation matters. A state known for breaking informal commitments, loses diplomatic goodwill, weakens its negotiating power, risks being isolated or mistrusted by partners.
Ethical Governance and Leadership Integrity
Governance is not only about law. It is also about honour, responsibility, and moral leadership. A government that honours its word demonstrates integrity, respect for stakeholders, and commitment to good faith dealings.
What Can Be Said of a Government That Breaks a Gentleman’s Agreement?
When a government reneges on such an agreement, several conclusions can be drawn:
- It Lacks Integrity and Good Faith. Breaking an honour-based agreement suggests the government: Does not value trust; is willing to manipulate partners; operates with opportunism rather than principle
- It Undermines Its Own Legitimacy
A government that cannot keep informal promises raises doubts about its ability to keep formal ones. This weakens public confidence, institutional credibility, the moral foundation of its authority
- It Signals Unreliability to Domestic and International Actors
Political actors, opposition parties, civil society, foreign governments, etc., may become reluctant to negotiate or cooperate with such a government.
- It Reveals a Governance Culture Rooted in Expediency, Not Principle
Such behaviour suggests a leadership style that prioritizes short-term advantage over long-term stability and ethical governance.
A gentleman’s agreement with a government is not legally binding, but it is politically and morally binding.
Its power lies not in law but in trust, integrity, and the expectations of honourable conduct. A government that honours such commitments strengthens its legitimacy, credibility, and moral authority.
A government that breaks them exposes itself as unreliable, unprincipled, and unworthy of the trust placed in it by its people and partners. In governance, perhaps more than anywhere else, a promise is not merely a legal instrument; it reflects character.
Greetings my fellow Sierra Leoneans, ladies and gentlemen.
Bambay Lansana Kamara Pizarro.
Let me seize this opportunity to first, and foremost, thank Mr. Mira Dumbuya for this splendid and studious elaboration, and give my views with regards to the concept he beautifully pronounced in the characterization of the agreement reached by the SLPP led government and other political parties to set-up a tripartite Committee and to implement the recommendation such a committee arrived at as a Gentleman’s Agreement, and ask questions about the accuracy of such a classification as a Gentleman’s Agreement.
I read this article last night but I was struggling to understand whether the agreement reached between the S.L.P.P. led government of Sierra Leone and the opposition political parties was actually a gentleman’s agreement.
I have read about gentleman’s agreements reached between governments and corporations and between business entities, as that between the United States and Japan in 1907, J.P. Morgan and other corporations to name a few. All these agreements fall under the category Mr. Mira Dumbuya so beautiful and concisely explained in his piece.
However, in my struggle to categorize this agreement within the explained circumference, I tried to figure-out whether the agreement was a “Gentleman’s Agreement or not. If so why, if not why not.
In a further reading and following the debate about the A.P. C’S recent decision to avoid any further participation in all governance structured because of the Bio Government’s lack of respect for the agreement reached, and the implementation of the recommendations of the Tripartite Committee, I decided to do a continued reading to understand what a Gentleman’s Agreement is, haven read Mr. Dumbuya’s explanation that a Gentleman’s Agreement is Non-binding and not enforceable by law. Then I asked myself whether the agreement was documented, and if so, whether it was signed by the political parties’ representatives and the President?
Upon reading, I came to find out certain terms that I thought might interest readers, especially legal luminaries whose clarifications would help the general populace and I get a professionally explained version for a thorough understanding.
In this curiosity, I happen to read that Indeed, President Julius Maada Bio officially received the final report of the Tripartite Committee on July 1, 2024. The reading further stated that he, President Bio, signed the said final report.
Still beleaguered by my legal naivety, skeptical of the contextual bearings in this regard, the nature of the issue revolving the Tripartite Committee, the Electoral Review Process that is in progress, President Bio’s appointment of the Chair of the Electoral Commission, and APC’s mentioned decision, it dunned on me that keeping my view in silence would result in a more complex wishy-washy astringed euphoria , keeping me uninformed and unwilling to learn, the “You sabbie but you nor know” kind of atmosphere. Therefore, I decided to say what I know to hopefully encourage a further debate through which Sierra Leoneans and I would gain knowledge or insight.
As I stated earlier, I came across the terms: Political Resolution and Joint Resolution. Where Political Resolution is not binding but Joint Resolution is binding. However, my naivety kicked-in when I read about a resolution reached at chamber level and signed by the President. If an agreement is reached and signed by the President and Political Parties, could this agreement be considered a Gentleman’s Agreement?
In which case, was the agreement reached between President Bio and the Political parties, a Gentleman’s Agreement, Political Resolution or Joint Resolution, if the President signed the document that outlined the Tripartite Committee’s Recommendations?
If neither of these terms are acceptable could there be an appropriate term that could be used to punctuate the necessity for a boycott and the foreseeable impact for these types of scenarios?
I am hopping that during the course of this debate, professionals would examine, for the sake of clarity, the type of language appropriate to make us understand what is afoot.
Thank you for your time, and I hope we get a better understanding for precedence and prosperity.
Once again, Bambay Lansana Kamara Pizarro.