On Wednesday, March 12, 2025, the Oversight Committee on Works assembled for a crucial meeting with the Ministry of Works and Public Assets.

The venue was the spacious conference room of Parliament building Tower Hill in Freetown, where the atmosphere buzzed with anticipation.

Chairing the meeting was the Deputy Leader of Government Business, whose presence underscored the importance of this gathering in the ongoing oversight and accountability initiatives shaping the ministry’s operations.

The meeting set the stage for a new chapter in the ministry, following a leadership transition that saw the appointment of a new Minister of Works and a new Permanent Secretary (PS) in 2024.

The Deputy Leader remarked on the previous year, describing it as a “grace period”—a time designated for the newly appointed officials to acclimate to their roles and implement their strategic operational frameworks.

As the second session of the Sixth Parliament unfolded, the Chairman took the opportunity to emphasize that many members of the Oversight Committee had been retained, which reflected a collective mandate to adopt a more proactive and decisive stance in ensuring the ministry’s performance standards. He pointed out an essential fact: the effectiveness of the Ministry of Works and Public Assets was intricately linked to public perception of the government and, by extension, the political fortunes of the Members of Parliament (MPs). Constituents, often unaware of the ministers’ names or their formal titles, had direct lines to their MPs, relying on them to address immediate infrastructure concerns such as road repairs and bridge maintenance. With a firm tone, the Chairman asserted that the MPs held a grave responsibility; their electoral success depended on their ability to ensure the ministry fulfilled its duties effectively.

The Chairman clarified the purpose of the committee’s inquiry—asserting that it was not merely to hold the ministry accountable through pointed questioning but to genuinely extend a helping hand. Still, he firmly maintained that the ministry’s success was non-negotiable. Excuses for underperformance were simply unacceptable; after all, the government, particularly the President, required tangible results. He conveyed a strong message to the MPs: they were prepared to take action against those who failed to perform, as their credibility and prospects for re-election hinged on the ministry delivering on its commitments to the citizens of Sierra Leone.

During the meeting, the committee addressed a specific issue concerning a letter sent to the ministry on February 19, 2025. This correspondence outlined the formal procedures for communication, stipulating that all official correspondence from Parliament should be directed to the Permanent Secretary. Given the PS’ role as the permanent official within the ministry overseeing day-to-day operations, the MPs highlighted the importance of holding the PS accountable, especially when ministers are frequently while the PS remains a consistent figure. The committee emphasized that the PS’s involvement was vital for the efficient functioning of the ministry, underscoring the expectation that MPs would directly communicate with the PS on all ministry-related matters.

The discussions took a more urgent tone as the committee raised concerns about the ministry’s management of government properties. A pivotal point of debate revolved around the ministry’s practices regarding rented premises. The MPs expressed their apprehensions about the government potentially incurring unnecessary expenses by renting private properties, especially in light of the existence of available government-owned buildings. The committee sought clarity on the amount being spent on private rentals and questioned why these calculations had not been adequately reported or managed. Transparency emerged as a critical theme, with the committee probing whether the ministry maintained an accurate inventory of its properties and how it justified the costs associated with renting.

The Chairman insisted that if the government owned suitable buildings that could meet its needs, renting private properties should not even be considered. He voiced his increasing concern that the ministry’s actions appeared to reflect a disregard for parliamentary oversight, which was creating confusion among the MPs and within the ministry. The committee aimed to delineate the respective roles of the ministry and Parliament in ensuring public funds were allocated judiciously and in compliance with legislative requirements.

In response, the Permanent Secretary acknowledged that the documents reviewed by the committee were prepared by the ministry’s professional staff. Taking ownership of the ministry’s performance, she expressed her willingness to accept accountability for any discrepancies within the documentation or operational shortcomings. As the head of the ministry, she affirmed her commitment to oversee both its technical and administrative dimensions, reinforcing her dedication to fostering a culture of accountability within the ministry moving forward.