A fresh controversy has emerged at the University of Sierra Leone following the release of an investigative report by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), which cleared the institution’s Business Centre of financial misconduct but highlighted governance concerns and ministerial interference.
The ACC report, dated May 8, investigated allegations of administrative, procurement, financial and governance irregularities at the University of Sierra Leone between 2021 and 2023.
The investigation followed concerns earlier raised by a committee constituted by the university’s Vice Chancellor and Principal, Prof. Aiah Lebbie.
According to the ACC, the university’s internal investigation process had “limitations and challenges” that raised concerns about procedural fairness and adequacy of responses, including references to previous audit exercises.
The Commission stated that the Business Centre, being registered as a private company, was not subject to public procurement laws. It also noted that the procurement of four vehicles by the Centre had received board approval and remained within budgetary limits.
On allegations involving Le6.5 million in transactions flagged by the university’s committee, the ACC said no evidence of misappropriation or financial misconduct was established against the Finance Director.
The report stated that all supporting documents were presented, verified and cleared following reviews conducted by the Audit Service Sierra Leone and the ACC investigation team.
However, the Commission identified what it described as “serious administrative concerns,” including the dissolution of the University Court by the Ministry and overlapping leadership roles within the institution.
The report further stated that ministerial intervention led the university to halt business dealings with the Business Centre after April 26, 2023, resulting in declining sales, stock stagnation and financial losses.
It also revealed that several constituent colleges owed significant receivables to the Business Centre, creating liquidity challenges.
The ACC additionally noted that Fourah Bay College failed to provide documentation relating to overhead utilisation due to poor administrative structures and the absence of a coherent university-wide system.
The Commission attributed delays in the university’s 2022–2023 financial statements to upgrades in the SAGE accounting system and staff capacity limitations, while confirming that 2021 records had been properly submitted.
“ACC findings do not support the Committee’s findings,” the report concluded.
The Commission also highlighted the absence of a centralized research grant management framework at the university, describing the issue as requiring urgent reform. It commended College of Medicine and Allied Health Sciences for independently developing a compliant system with international partners.
Among its recommendations, the ACC urged the university to respect ongoing audits by Audit Service Sierra Leone, ensure due process in future investigations, formally recognize the autonomy of the Business Centre, and adopt COMAHS’ grant management framework across the institution.
In response, USL Management, through a position paper issued on May 20, said it accepts evidence-based findings from its Court-mandated Policy Sub-Committee regarding 17 policy breaches but rejected significant portions of the ACC report.
The university accused the Commission of minimizing systemic governance failures and misrepresenting administrative decisions.
“Importantly, the ACC report ignores or minimizes the findings of a separate Court-mandated Sub-Committee on Procurement Policy,” the university stated.
USL clarified that both the Registrar and Finance Director were asked to proceed on leave in January 2024 because their five-year contracts had expired following the dissolution of the University Court.
The institution stressed that neither official was dismissed nor accused of corruption.
“Any suggestion in the ACC report that these officers were treated unfairly is unsubstantiated,” the university argued.
On procurement concerns, USL maintained that although the ACC’s legal interpretation regarding the Business Centre’s status may be technically accurate, it failed to address broader governance concerns.
According to the university’s Policy Sub-Committee, the Business Centre manager engaged in procurement activities outside her mandate, despite warnings issued by the National Public Procurement Authority (NPPA) in 2021 against allowing the Business Centre to carry out procurement.
The university further argued that the Business Centre acted simultaneously as supplier and procurement facilitator, creating what it described as a conflict of interest under Section 33(1)(c) of the Public Procurement Act 2016.
USL also rejected the ACC’s characterization of its internal investigations, stating that both the Investigation Committee (INVCOM) and the Policy Sub-Committee independently reached similar conclusions regarding systemic governance failures.
The university warned that accepting the ACC report without scrutiny could create “dangerous implications” for institutional governance and accountability.
On research grant management, USL agreed that a centralized framework is necessary and acknowledged the absence of enforcement mechanisms for the mandatory 10 percent overhead policy.
It also admitted that delays in financial reporting remain a serious issue and stated that non-submission concerns involving SAFO require urgent attention.
Referencing five internal reports produced between January and March 2025, the university said it plans to implement corrective reforms, including the establishment of an investment policy for the Business Centre and the creation of a centralized Monitoring and Evaluation Unit.
USL concluded by calling on the ACC Commissioner to direct the Director of Crimes to retract the report and issue a public apology to the university.
Reacting during the Morning Devotion programme, ACC Deputy Director of Public Relations, Sylvanus Blake, firmly rejected the university’s demands.
“Never, we will not retract nor apologise,” Blake stated, adding that the Commission’s work is based on professionalism and institutional competence.
“Our competence is above retracting, and we are not working based on anybody’s perception. This is a professional institution for 26 years,” he said.
Blake further maintained that the Commission stands fully by its findings and remains prepared for any reaction arising from its reports.
“This is a professional position, it will stand the test of time,” he added.