Sheriff Mahmud Ismail, Abuja
In times of economic difficulty, the true test of governance lies not in bold proclamations but in thoughtful action. When public servants await their salaries, when councils struggle to maintain basic services, and when families face rising costs of living, decisions that shape the administrative future of a country must be anchored in prudence, data, and empathy. It is in this context that the recent announcement of plans to divide Freetown into two municipalities and to establish additional districts deserves deeper reflection and reassessment.
There is no doubt that decentralisation, when done responsibly, can be a powerful driver of development. Political theorists from Jean-Paul Faguet to James Manor have documented how decentralised governance, especially in low-income settings, can bring government closer to the people, improve service delivery, and foster local accountability. African success stories such as Kenya’s 2010 devolution and Rwanda’s district reform underscore the potential of structured, well-resourced, and inclusive decentralisation.
But these examples also come with a caveat: decentralisation is not merely about multiplying administrative units. It is about aligning political will with institutional readiness, financial viability, and community participation. Without these pillars, decentralisation risks becoming fragmentation, creating more offices, but not necessarily more development.
Context Matters
In her Open Letter of Tuesday, June 3, 2025, Mayor Freetown Yvonne Aki-Sawyerr provides a compelling case and historical perspective related to the Freetown municipality. She says Freetown is a city of profound historical and economic importance. Since its founding in 1792, it has evolved into Sierra Leone’s capital, the country’s main administrative and commercial hub, and a cultural symbol with global recognition. Yet, she notes, it is also a city constrained by geography, hemmed in by the Atlantic Ocean and mountain ranges, and burdened by rising population density, rapid urbanisation, and environmental vulnerabilities.
On political brinkmanship, her arguments could not have been more persuasive. Service delivery in Freetown is already challenged by a dispersion of mandates. As outlined in her open letter, land use planning sits with the Ministry of Lands, water provision with Guma Valley, and road infrastructure with the Sierra Leone Roads Authority. The Freetown City Council (FCC) manages waste, public health units, and municipal regulations, often with limited resources and overlapping jurisdictions.
Against this backdrop, dividing the city into two local councils, she argues, risks deepening fragmentation at a time when integration and coordination are most needed. Major citywide initiatives, such as the newly adopted waste management framework and the “Operation Dorti Mus Go” campaign, depend on holistic planning and economies of scale. Aki-Sawyerr, therefore, argues that splitting the city could unravel years of work and deter private sector partnerships premised on unified governance.
Economic Realities Cannot Be Ignored
Mayor Aki-Sawyerr also draws upon the legal framework related to local government administration. She makes the point that the Local Government Act of 2022 is clear: local councils are to be funded through a mix of their own-source revenue, central government grants, and service transfers. And yet, as of June 2025, the Mayor notes, the Freetown City Council has not received any tiered grants for the current year. Other sources say transfers for the second and third quarters of 2024 for other councils also remain outstanding. Publicservice delivery, including education, health, and sanitation, is already under strain, and central government obligations have yet to be met.
It is not just a financial matter. It is a question of feasibility,and Mayor Aki-Sawyerr could not have been more convincing. As she asserts, between 2018 and 2024, the FCC significantly increased its internally generated revenue, from NLe17 million to over NLe51 million, through digitisation, property registration, and tax reform. But she warns that this success is uneven. According to her analysis, in 2024, 80 percent of property tax revenue came from the city’s western wards, while the eastern wards, which house the majority of the population, contributed just 20 percent.
She therefore makes the strong point that creating new councils in areas with limited revenue generation capacity and without concrete fiscal transfer frameworks risks undermining equity in service delivery. And she is right. New administrative units will require new staff, offices, logistics, and recurrent costs. if the existing structures are still underfunded, what’s the point in creating new ones?
Decentralisation cannot be effective unless the financial architecture is in place to sustain it. Kenya’s model, for example, included constitutional guarantees for funding, ensuring that devolution was not only political but practical.
Lessons from Where Multiplication Becomes a Mess
The dangers of multiplying administrative structures for political purposes, rather than for improving service delivery, are well documented across Africa. Uganda provides a sobering example. Since the late 1990s, the country has expanded its number of districts from 39 to over 135, often justified under the guise of bringing governance closer to the people. Yet, multiple independent assessments, including reports from the Uganda National Planning Authority and international observers, have concluded that many of these new districts were established without adequate planning, financial backing, or infrastructure. The result has been a proliferation of weak and under-resourced local governments, fragmented service delivery, administrative redundancies, and bloated wage bills. In several cases, new districts lacked even basic offices and staff for months or years, while existing districts suffered from resource dilution. What was intended to empower communities instead overwhelmed the public sector and complicated coordination. Uganda’s experience underscores the core lesson: administrative expansion without service delivery logic leads not to development, but to dysfunction. Sierra Leone must avoid this trap.
Let Consultation Guide the Process
The decision to redraw administrative boundaries should be the outcome of a national conversation. Citizens, civil society, experts, and development partners all have a stake in how local governance evolves. What are the goals? What evidence supports the change? What are the cost implications? How will it improve service delivery and citizen engagement?
These are not questions of opposition, they are questions of due diligence. Every policy, especially one as significant as the creation of new districts or municipalities, must begin with the people. Consultation strengthens public trust and leads to better, more grounded outcomes. If decentralisation is to succeed, it must be inclusive, transparent, and justifiable.
A Call for Thoughtful Governance
This is not a call to abandon decentralisation. On the contrary, it is a call to do it better. Sierra Leoneans want and deserve governance that works. Councils that deliver. Cities that grow in harmony. A state that listens before it acts. Rather than expand administrative structures during a fiscal downturn, now is the time to assess what is working and what is not. A comprehensive national review of decentralisation, its achievements, bottlenecks, and potential, would be a wiser starting point. Strengthening existing councils, building capacity, and improving revenue collection systems should be prioritised over structural multiplication.
Political power must be exercised with purpose and restraint. True leadership lies way less in showing that one can make changes, and more in knowing when and why to do so.
Conclusion
Freetown’s legacy, Sierra Leone’s economic future, and the dignity of local governance deserve more than hasty reconfiguration. They deserve leadership that respects both historical continuity and present-day complexity. Let us learn from other African nations, ground our reforms in data and dialogue, and put people at the heart of policy.
Let this be a moment of consensus and deliberation. A turning point where Sierra Leone chooses thoughtful, sustainable governance over symbolic gestures. Good governance is not measured by how many districts we create, but by how effectively we serve the people within them.
Let us decentralise wisely, inclusively, and with a conscience.
