Sierra Leone’s Battle for Neutrality in the Age of Polarization

The silence from both media and watchdogs on the photograph of the president of Sierra Leone in church with drug lord Jos Leijdekkers, shared by the first lady, underscores a systemic lack of public accountability. Only two reporters, who fled for their safety, have addressed the issue. 

Other than that, there's been no outrage from watchdogs or media outlets, no condemnation for hosting a convict wanted by the Netherlands, and no questioning of military and police chiefs who are allegedly receiving protection money from Leijdekkers or the president's daughter, who was received in the United States to have Leijdekkers' baby in New York. 

As Sierra Leone's media pretend to look the other way, they devote time to outrage over a Freetown city council executive who refuses to call himself the deputy mayor amid the opposition boycott. 

Meanwhile, Augustine Navo, a founding member of Foh Di Pupil Newspaper and a media developer, analyst, and legal practitioner based in London, recently shared his report, Sierra Leone’s Watchdogs Are Losing Their Neutrality, via a listserv dedicated to Sierra Leonean affairs.

Navo begins by stating that since March 2025, he has monitored the Sierra Leonean media landscape. His report assesses 30 individuals and institutions that have dominated local airwaves over the past year.

Navo analyzes how hosts and guests influence debates and position themselves on national issues. He reviewed 53 civil society press releases and 725 radio programs, focusing on shows broadcast on AYV TV, SLBC TV, Slik TV, Radio Democracy, and Truth Media.

He also included Liberty Online TV and articles from eight print media outlets in his analysis. Navo prioritized finding consistent patterns rather than isolated expressions in his method.

He tracked recurring patterns in tone, framing, and political stance across periods and platforms rather than individual statements.

Navo paid particular attention to how these actors engaged with politically sensitive issues, including government actions, opposition narratives, and broader public debates.

By examining 53 press releases, 725 radio broadcasts, and articles from eight different sources spanning traditional and digital media, Navo seemingly minimized anecdotal bias when monitoring tone and political stance. Focusing on detecting consistent trends in tone, framing, and political alignment rather than individual remarks, Navo's method allows for a deeper level of analysis. His deliberate monitoring of interactions with the government, opposition, and debates reveals a well-defined analytical structure. 

However, Sierra Eye offers a specific critique, explaining that the report combines 'Basita Michael, ILRAJ' into a single entry. Sierra Eye clarifies that Basita Michael is an individual, the Institute for Legal Research and Advocacy for Justice (ILRAJ) is an independent human rights organization, and Sierra Eye is a distinct media platform. 

Both organizations share the same founder. 

Sierra Eye argues that conflating a person, a legal institution, and a media outlet—each with distinct mandates and governance—raises doubts about the analysis's accuracy. 

If this conflation happens here, readers might wonder if similar errors appear elsewhere in the dataset. 

Beyond this factual issue, Sierra Eye says the methodology lacks transparency: the report omits details on peer review, criteria for classifying programs, or whether subjects were contacted. 

While Navo states that he reviewed 725 programs and 53 press releases, he does not specify the scoring method, independent verification, or how ambiguous cases are handled. 

Sierra Eye concludes that without clear classification criteria, peer review, or transparency, one independent analyst's effort to classify political tone across 30 institutions amounts to opinion rather than rigorous research, thus failing to provide the robust accountability the media landscape requires.