By: Alex A. Bah, Ag. Public Relations Officer, ACC
Corruption has remained one of Sierra Leone’s greatest obstacles to her development. This vicious menace continues to steal massively from public coffers, weaken state institutions, and deny citizens access to some of the most basic but critical services that others have long taken for granted. As a country that had been plunged into a decade-long civil unrest, widely attributed to endemic corruption, the plague has seriously afflicted the nation. Consequently, the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) was established. Since then, the ACC has been leading the charge, and its efforts to combat this scourge, especially in the last seven years have been vigorous. Yet, prosecuting corruption cases has always been challenging, regardless of the conscientious efforts to revolutionize enforcement. Trials can drag on for years, evidence in criminal matters is often complex, and offenders, who are mostly powerful, have resources to frustrate the cry for justice.
In its efforts to ensure the fight is not stalled or deterred by these challenges, the ACC, under the competent leadership of Francis Ben Kaifala Esq aka ‘’The Peoples’ Commissioner’’, has fully embraced, absorbed, and integrated two innovative tools; plea bargaining and the non-conviction-based (NCB) asset recovery. Both aimed at recouping stolen funds or assets efficiently and hold corrupt actors accountable, as traditional criminal trials can be slow, uncertain, or impossible.
Plea bargaining is a legal arrangement where a defendant agrees to plead his guilt and cooperate with the prosecution/investigating body in return for a drop of, or lesser or reduced charge. In practical terms, it is a way to deliver justice more efficiently and is negotiated between the prosecutor and the defendant. These agreements require court approval, ensuring that justice remains accountable and transparent.
It is highly efficient as it reduces the time and cost of lengthy trials that could otherwise be delayed or laborious. It also allows quicker return of stolen funds, especially in cases with multiple counts, where the most substantial counts are maintained and others dropped to aid quicker recoveries. Plea bargaining guarantees conviction rather than risking acquittal while encouraging cooperation, as defendants may provide evidence or expose accomplices.
This effective method is sometimes considered a “soft option,” suggesting it lets offenders escape punishment, could weaken deterrence, and can be unfair or susceptible to abuse. The ACC has ensured these concerns are mitigated through judicial oversight and transparency, ensuring settlements are in public interest.
The reported case of Tafo Balogun v Federal Republic of Nigeria FHC (2005) in which a plea bargain was entered into, evidenced the imposition of huge fines as well as the forfeiture of properties worth millions of dollars, manifested a case of partial conviction and substantial restitution without a protracted trial, a result that was considered proportionate. Similarly, in the United States, over 90% of federal white-collar cases are resolved via plea agreements, while South African courts approve plea agreements in corruption and fraud cases under the Criminal Procedure Act of South Africa, Act No 51 of 1997.
In the recent Sierra Leonean case of The State v Abdul Salim Mansaray and Two Others SLHC 2004 (unreported), a plea bargain arrangement was entered into, and through the use of non-conviction-based recovery, Le:34 billion old Leones was successfully recovered and returned to the state. Abdul Salim was convicted and fined Le:150 thousand leones, having been found guilty on three counts of corruption, and part of the bargain required his support in the furtherance of the investigations. The State v Mohamed Koroma SLHC 2025 (unreported also saw this method used, with conviction secured.
The Non-Conviction Recovery Model on the other hand is similar but highly effective, allowing the State to reclaim stolen assets even if the offender is not criminally convicted. Unlike criminal trials, which require proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It focuses on the proceeds of the crime, not the person. The ACC has used NCB to recover a large part of its over Le:76 million in the last seven years from corruption, without necessarily pursuing the prosecutorial route in misappropriation matters. Just as with plea bargaining, it is used when the evidence is overwhelming, ensuring the defendant pays in full the amount said to have been embezzled, with at least a ten percent interest, and that public officer is banned from holding public office for a minimum of three years. Section 89(a) of the Anti-Corruption Act of 2008 as amended in 2019, empowers the ACC to negotiate settlements that will require restitution or fines, with mandatory court approval.
This method draws inspiration and alignment from Articles 31, 53, and 54 of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), supporting civil recovery of proceeds of corruption without recourse to a criminal conviction. It ensures the restoration of public assets and the return of stolen wealth faster than prolonged trials. It also serves to deter corruption by sending a strong signal that corruption will never pay. In United Kingdom case of Gale & Others v Serious Organised Crime Agency SC (2011), civil recovery without a criminal conviction was allowed. The United States also widely uses civil forfeiture to recover assets linked to corruption and organized crime, while Kenyan courts uphold similar measures under their Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act 2003 (Act No. 3 of 2003).
In several matters, such as those involving Emmanuel Smart and Ibrahim Bangura from the Sierra Leone Roads Authority and Accountant General’s Department, NCB was used to recover monies amounting to Le:8.6 million in less than two months from the time the matter came to the ACC’s attention.
While criticisms have been advanced regarding the balance between pragmatism and fairness, the ACC has utilized these methods effectively, with NCB proving a game-changer in the fight against corruption. These are pragmatic tools, not shortcuts around justice, allowing the ACC to recover stolen assets, deter corruption, and hold offenders accountable even when traditional trials are slow or impractical.
Implemented transparently and fairly, these mechanisms strengthen public confidence, align with international standards such as UNCAC, and provide a template for Africa and beyond. Unsurprisingly, Cameroon, Liberia, and many other regional counterparts have visited Sierra Leone in recent years to study the successful implementation of this potent strategy.
While corruption may be clever, the ACC has proven to be smarter, recovering stolen wealth, safeguarding justice, and demonstrating that in the fight against graft, efficiency, expediency, and integrity can go hand in hand.
