By Amin Kef Sesay
After the Commission of Inquiry’s findings against one of Sierra Leone’s female political maestro and business woman, Miatta Kargbo and her appeal against same at the Appeals Court in Freetown, many Sierra Leoneans have described her situation as a witch hunt, especially as the Court refused to allow her lawyer, Melron Nicol-Wilson Esq., to produce fresh evidence before the Court on her financial status.
According to what some have said, Madam Miatta Kargbo was Presidential Advisor for Health, HIV/ AIDS, including Social Welfare and Children’s Affairs, and Labor and Social Security in the Strategy and Policy Unit of the administration of former President Koroma, later as Minister of Health and Sanitation.
She left political office in 2014 and thereafter got a consultancy as Coordinator – Social Protection and Capacity Building Post-Ebola Recovery, a DfID-funded Project under the Presidential Delivery Team (PDT), where she was being paid $6,000 monthly for 18 months.
Her exemplary performance may have not been liked by corrupt officials, who see her as a threat to their clandestine activities, whilst other committed staff saw her as an inspiration. They described her thus: “… she rewarded performance and did not practice nepotism, tribalism or regionalism….…during her tenure in office, the Ministry leadership was the most diverse in terms of gender – women in leadership, and regional diversity and party affiliation“.
During her tenure in the Ministry of Health and other political circles, Miatta may not have been appreciated by those who were not ready for change and/ or her expectations of high performance, and more especially not prepared to be led by a young and dynamic woman who may not have fit within the stereotype of the status quo. As has been the norm in the country, good people who delivered are often demonised by people who prefer the status quo to remain, and Miatta Kargbo was a victim of this cabal.
She left political office in 2016 and got a consultancy as Coordinator – Social Protection and Capacity Building Post-Ebola Recovery, a DfID-funded project under the Presidential Delivery Team (PDT), where she was being paid $6,000 monthly for 18 months.
During this period, Miatta was involved in business. Documents seen by this medium show that in 2016, two years after leaving office as Minister of Health, Kargbo acquired two haulage trucks for sand, granite, and other services. These trucks did several haulage services for customers who needed sand, granite, and dust, as well as provision of haulage services for Timber loggers.
She also had two tankers, bought from a loan she took from a local bank in 2011, using her parent’s house as loan collateral, which she finally paid in 2018. These tankers were contracted by NP-SL to supply fuel to various outlets in the country and proceeds paid into her account, according to documentary evidence seen.
Unfortunately, these were part of the new evidence that were not allowed in the Appeals Court, after Counsel of the State, Robert Kowa, refused to accept them into evidence at the appeals; which, according to her lawyer, could have explained the allegations of unexplained wealth, which the Court then sent to the ACC for further handling. In respect of allegations of missing ambulances, the Appeals Court exonerated her, as it stated that the ambulances were procured, delivered and used in the Ebola fight.
As things stand, many Sierra Leoneans are of the opinion that had the evidence been allowed at the Court of Appeal, allegations against Miatta Kargbo would have been debunked and the matter laid to rest, especially when at the very onset of the COI, Legal representatives of the various persons of interest, including the Bar Association, questioned the absence of rules of evidence in the trials/investigations.
Their arguments were all made to forestall such anomalies, and ensure a fair hearing of the persons of interest, unfortunately, their concerns were brushed aside and the COI continued without rules of evidence. It is against this backdrop that some of the parties have decided to appeal against the findings of the COI in the Appeals Court, where rules of evidence are observed.
