Va-PoReg Country Report Sierra Leone 1900–2025

The coastal area of Sierra Leone became a British colony on 01/01/1808.¹ The Hinterland became a British Protectorate in 1896. Between 1900 and 1956, the effective governing authority in Sierra Leone rested firmly with representatives of the British colonial administration, under the authority of the Crown and the British Colonial Office in London. The Governor, appointed by the British monarch on advice from the Colonial Office, held supreme executive power throughout this period, supported by a small Executive Council composed mainly of colonial officials rather than locally elected representatives. From 1900 to 1923, the coastal Colony of Freetown was administered directly by the British Governor of Sierra Leone, who acted as the effective executive leader. The office was successively held by several governors, among them Sir Charles Anthony King-Harman (1898–1900) and Sir George Chardin Denton (1901–1911), followed by Sir Edward Marsh Merewether (1911–1916) and Sir Richard James Wilkinson (1916–1919). These officials exercised nearly unchecked authority under British law, supported by advisory councils dominated by expatriate officials. The inland Protectorate, established in 1896, was governed indirectly through local paramount chiefs, who exercised limited administrative powers under the supervision of British district commissioners. From 1924 to 1950, through the introduction of a new constitution, the United Kingdom government separated Sierra Leone’s administration into two distinct regions: the coastal Colony of Freetown and the inland Protectorate, each with its own political structure. The latter was primarily under local chieftain control. Tensions between these two regions peaked in 1947 due to proposals to unify their political systems, mainly advocated by the more populous Protectorate’s leaders. The Krios, under Isaac Wallace-Johnson, resisted these changes, fearing a loss of their political influence in the colony. The Governor of Sierra Leone, such as Sir Ransford Slater (1922–1927) and later Sir George Beresford-Stooke (1948–1956), remained the dominant figure in both regions, though the Protectorate’s local governance relied on traditional rulers within the framework of indirect rule. The Legislative Council, introduced in 1924, had only a few elected African members from the Colony and served largely in an advisory capacity, without real power to constrain the Governor. No multiparty executive and legislative elections were held until 1950. From 1951 onward, multiparty legislative elections were held. In 1953, Sierra Leone obtained local ministerial authority, and Margai secured the position of prime minister through elections. There were no executive elections held during this period and universal suffrage was absent (LIED). From 1900 to 1923, V-Dem’s JCE indicates that judicial constraints on the executive are limited. At the same time, V-Dem’s LCE shows no value, which, with appropriate caution, can be interpreted as an absence of legislative constraints on the executive. From 1924 to 1950, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were limited, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were absent. From 1951 to 1956, V-Dem’s JCE is classified by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were moderate, whereas V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were absent. According to LIED, political liberties were absent. V-Dem’s PCLI classifies political liberties as not really present until 1950 and as ambiguous from 1951 onward.

The introduction of a new constitution established Sierra Leone as a parliamentary system within the Commonwealth of Nations. Subsequently, in May 1957, the inaugural parliamentary election took place. The SLPP, then the leading political entity in the colony of Sierra Leone and backed by influential paramount chiefs in the provinces, secured the majority of parliamentary seats. Margai was overwhelmingly re-elected as Chief Minister during this time.² In May 1957, general elections took place in Sierra Leone Colony and Protectorate, with a total of 39 seats contested, along with the indirect election of twelve paramount chiefs. The Sierra Leone People’s Party, under the leadership of Milton Margai, secured a majority of the elected seats and earned the backing of all 12 chiefs, as well as eight out of ten independent candidates. Margai subsequently guided the nation to independence in 1961.³ For 1957 to 1960, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were moderate, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were absent. LIED confirms the presence of multiparty and legislative elections. Universal suffrage was achieved in 1958 according to LIED. Political liberties were absent according to LIED and ambiguous according to V-Dem’s PCLI.

On this date, Margai led the country to independence (Lansford 2021: 1468).³ Sierra Leone was from then on an independent sovereign state with its own parliament and its own prime minister.⁴ On 01/05/1962, general elections were conducted for the first time under universal suffrage. The ruling Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) emerged victorious in these elections. Despite receiving fewer votes compared to independent candidates, SLPP leader Milton Margai retained his position as prime minister.⁵ Based on our observations, multiparty executive and legislative elections were held during this period, which aligns with the observations of LIED. Additionally, the elections were considered competitive until 1966 by LIED, while V-Dem’s CEI scores them as not really clean during this period. Interestingly, V-Dem’s EF&FI suggests that the overall election conditions were somewhat free and fair. Furthermore, LIED indicates that political liberties were absent, whereas V-Dem’s PCLI describes them as ambiguous in 1961 and somewhat present from 1962 onward. According to the Polity5 indicator, during this period, the executive faced substantial limitations on decision-making power. From 1961 to 1967, political control was solely in the hands of the SLPP, primarily composed of Mende members and led consecutively by Margai and his half-brother, Albert M. Margai. Efforts to establish a one-party system under the SLPP were thwarted by the opposition All People’s Congress (APC), led by Siaka P. Stevens, a formidable trade-union leader from the smaller Limba tribe and predominantly consisting of Temne members (Lansford 2021: 1468). Due to the fact that there were attempts to establish a one-party autocracy by the SLPP and that as soon as a candidate from the APC won the parliamentary elections a coup backed by the SLPP took place-. However, while RoW classifies the country as an electoral autocracy, BR, BMR, GWF, LIED, MCM and PRC all classify Sierra Leone in this period as democratic. According to our classification the regime is an electoral hybrid regime that has mixed democratic and autocratic elements. For the relevant regime period, from 1961 to 1966, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were moderate, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were limited. In the general elections 1967, the FAPC won most seats in parliament and Siaka Stevens was sworn in as prime minister.

On this date David Lanasana seized power from the civilian government. However, this regime lasted only two days and does therefore not appear in the data set.⁶ Lansana was allied with the dominant faction of the incumbent party and collaborated with incumbent elites in carrying out the coup (Bebler 1973: 68-70, Foray 1988: 27, Fisher 1969).

A coup orchestrated by Major Blake resulted in the removal of Force Commander Brigadier David Lansana. The officers involved in Lansana’s ousting were in opposition to the existing administration. They formed a seven-member military junta known as the National Reformation Council, which suspended the constitution, disbanded all political parties, and shut down parliament (Bebler 1973: 68-70, Foray 1988: 27, Geddes/Wright/Frantz 2014: 92). Per LIED no multiparty executive or legislative elections were held during the specified period. According to Polity5, the executive held unlimited authority with no institutionalized constraints on decision-making power. For the year 1967, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were limited, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were moderate. In 1967, LIED identifies political liberties as absent and V-Dem’s PCLI is classified by us as ambiguous regarding the state of political liberties.

A mutiny led by warrant officers and private soldiers (the Anti-Corruption Revolutionary Movement) successfully ousted the military government, facilitating the installation of elected members of parliament who had previously been denied the opportunity to assume office after the March 1967 elections.⁷ As the leader of the largest party, Stevens assumed the role of prime minister, marking the completion of the transition to civilian rule (Fisher 1969: 611, Bebler 1973: 79-80, Foray 1988: 31-32, Geddes/Wright/Frantz 2014: 92). On 06/30/1968, the SLPP leaders were arrested to prevent them from campaigning in by-elections, as the APC government began steps towards single-party rule. The government annulled most of the constituency elections won by SLPP in 1967 and used resources to ensure they won subsequent by-elections. The first SLPP leaders were arrested in June 1968, tipping the regime towards dictatorship. In November 1968, the government declared a state of emergency and sent troops to SLPP strongholds, killing supporters during the ensuing repression. The SLPP was prevented from holding political meetings and repression increased over time (Africa Confidential 1968: 7, Cartwright 1968: 29-30, Clapham 1972: 83-85, Cox 1976: 208, Allen 1978: 192, Hayward 1984: 25-26, 30, Zack-Williams 1999: 144, Geddes/Wright/Frantz 2014: 92-93). Based on Polity5’s assessment, during this period, the executive’s power was noticeably limited but not substantial, fitting Intermediate Category 2. For the relevant period, 1968-1970, V-Dem’s JCE indicates that judicial constraints on the executive are limited. At the same time, V-Dem’s LCE shows no value, which, with appropriate caution, can be interpreted as an absence of legislative constraints on the executive. On 04/19/1971 the parliamentary system was replaced with a presidential system, signifying a shift in governance structure. This constitutional change elevated Siaka Stevens to the position of Sierra Leone’s first executive President.⁸ Sierra Leone became a republic within the Commonwealth.⁹ In 1973, general elections were held, but the SLPP boycotted these, due to alleged intimidations. In 1974, an alleged coup against President Steve failed and all its leaders were executed. One year later, government officials were executed for an alleged coup attempt. In the election in March 1976, Stevens was reelected as President. In May 1977 national parliamentary elections were held, which had the APC victorious. They won 74 seats, whereas the SLPP won 15 seats.¹⁰ Based on our observations, multiparty executive and legislative elections were held during this period, which aligns with the observations of LIED. In addition, elections were not competitive according to LIED. V-Dem’s CEI scores no cleanliness for the entire time. Furthermore, according to V-Dem’s EF&FI no elections were held until 1972. Since 1973 the election are not really free and fair. As classified by FH in 1972, the country scores between 9 and 10 as not free, which we interpret as rather not free. Per FH, from 1973 to 1976, the country scores between 11 and 14 as not free, which we also interpret as not free. Per FH’s evaluation in 1977, the country scores from 9 to 10 as not free, which we categorize as rather not free. Political liberties were absent according to LIED. V-Dem’s PCLI declares them as ambiguous until 1971. Since 1972, they are not really present. According to Polity5, during this period, the executive encountered slight limitations on decision-making power imposed by other institutions. In our classification the regime period is a clear case of an electoral autocracy. For 1971-1977, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were limited, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were absent.

In 1978, the parliament, led by the APC, approved a new constitution making the country a one-party state. Stevens argued that the one-party rule was more African than Western-style democracy. The APC became the only legal political party, which led to widespread demonstrations. These were met with government oppression and violence.¹⁰ Stevens remained president for 14 years, until 1985.¹¹ He was succeeded by Joseph Saidu Momoh, who was elected as the only candidate and instated 11/28/1985.¹² In 1990, the government gave into growing pressure and set up a commission to assess the one-party constitution, leading to the re-establishment of a multi-party system on 10/01/1991. The first elections under the new constitution were not held until 1996, due to the coup in 1992.¹³ In accordance with LIED, both executive and legislative elections were held during the specified period, but they were not categorized as multiparty. According to Polity5, during this period, the executive encountered slight limitations on decision-making power imposed by other institutions. For 1978-1990, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were limited, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were absent. For 1991, V-Dem’s JCE is classified by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were absent, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were also absent. As classified by FH from 1978 to 1988, the country scores between 9 and 10 as not free, which we interpret as rather not free. Per FH, from 1989 to 1991, the country scores between 11 and 14 as not free, which we also interpret as not free. LIED identifies political liberties as absent, whereas V-Dem’s PCLI is classified by us as showing that political liberties were not really present.

A military coup of junior officers led by the 25-year-old Captain Valentine Strasser ousted Momoh and the dominant party regime. The officers formed the National Provisional Ruling Council (NPRC), consisting of 18 military officers and four civilians (Zack-Williams 1999: 149-50, Geddes/Wright/Frantz 2014: 93) and Strasser became head of state.¹⁴ The constitution was abolished, as well as press freedom and freedom of speech. The rule of the government became increasingly authoritarian, which led to several coups attempts which in turn led to executions. Moreover, the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) rebels gained more power and land, which led to the government response of violently driving them back. In accordance with LIED, no multiparty executive or legislative elections were held during the specified period. According to Polity5, during this period, the executive held unlimited authority with no institutionalized constraints on decision-making power. For 1992, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were absent, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were limited. For 1993-1995, V-Dem’s JCE indicates that judicial constraints on the executive are absent. Simultaneously, V-Dem’s LCE shows no value, which, with appropriate caution, can be interpreted as an absence of legislative constraints on the executive. According to FH’s classification for the assessed regime period, a score between 11 and 14 makes the country not free, which we also place in the not free category. On 01/17/1996 Julius Maada Bio and other officers ousted Strasser. Bio and other members of the military were reportedly unhappy with Strasser’s handling of the peace process with the RUF. Bio stated his goals as ending the civil war and bringing democracy back to Sierra Leone. He assumed the junta chairman position.¹¹ Bio’s January 1996 coup represents a leadership change within the same Military Autocracy rather than transition to Non-Electoral Transitional Regime because Bio served as Supreme Council of State member throughout the NPRC’s 1992-1996 rule and his coup emerged from internal SCS disputes, demonstrating institutional continuity of the same junta. Bio’s stated commitment to return Sierra Leone to a democratically elected civilian government and end the civil war.¹⁵ However, this constitutes guardianship legitimation (military as active savior) rather than caretaker legitimation (neutral procedural facilitation), consistent with Strasser’s guardianship pattern. For the given timeframe, LIED identifies political liberties as absent, while V-Dem’s PCLI is classified by us as indicating that political liberties were not really present until 1993 and in an ambiguous state from 1994 onwards.

On this date elections were held under an electoral commission and around 15 parties were allowed to compete. Due to the raging civil war, less than 50% of the registered voters actually voted and in many rural areas voting was not accessible (Kandeh 1998: 96-106). The SLPP won the election and Ahmad Tejan Kabbah became president. He immediately started a dialogue with the RUF rebels and signed a peace agreement with them (Kandeh 1998: 95-106, Reno 1998: 135-36, Geddes/Wright/Frantz 2014: 93).¹⁶ We classify this regime change event as a voluntary exit, given that the junta relinquished political power. Based on our observations, multiparty executive and legislative elections were held during this period, which aligns with the observations of LIED. LIED considers the election as not competitive. V-Dem’s CEI points in the direction that the elections were not really clean. However, V-Dem’s EF&FI considers the overall election conditions as somewhat free and fair. As classified by FH for this regime period, the country scores between 9 and 10 as not free, which we interpret as rather not free. LIED still scores absent political liberties, while according to V-Dem’s PCLI they were somewhat present. According to the Polity5 indicator, during this period, the executive faced substantial limitations on decision-making power. For 1996, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were moderate, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were limited. While GWF codes the regime as democratic, most other datasets are more skeptical. However, for instance, the coding as a closed autocracy by RoW is a clearly false classification since elections took place. Most datasets like AF, HTW, LIED, and MCM classify the regime as a multiparty/electoral autocracy.

On this date, Sierra Leone Army (SLA) officers freed and armed 600 prisoners in Freetown, one of them was Major Johnny Paul Korma. Ethnic tensions, the failure of the civil war and the lack of supplies for the armed forces were cited by the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council, led by Johnny Paul Koroma, as reasons for the coup against Kabbah. Koroma was appointed chairman after the coup and Kabbah was sent into exile (Kandeh 1998: 107, Zack-Williams 1999: 143, 152-53, Geddes/Wright/Frantz 2014: 93, Haggard/Kaufman/Teo 2016: 57-58). For 1997, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were limited, and V-Dem’s LCE is similarly interpreted as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were also limited. According to LIED, no multiparty executive or legislative elections were held during the specified period. Per FH, for this regime period, the country scores between 11 and 14 as not free, which we also interpret as not free. In 1997, LIED identifies political liberties as absent, while V-Dem’s PCLI indicates that political liberties were somewhat present.

Koroma invited the Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) forces to help end the civil war with the RUF. Despite the signing of a peace agreement with the rebels, fighting continued. Because of that, ECOMOG ousted Koroma on this date from power and reinstalled the civilian leader Kabbah (Kandeh 1998: 107). Kabbah returned to Freetown on 03/10/1998 (Geddes/Wright/Frantz 2014: 93).¹⁷ In 1999 the Lomé Peace Agreement between Kabbah and the RUF was signed, which gave the leader of the rebels, Sankoh, the position of vice-president. Moreover, him and his followers were given amnesty. The agreement was nationally and internationally highly criticized and did not lead to an end of the war.¹⁸ After the deployment of UN peacekeepers, as well as British troops, the war was declared over in January 2002.¹¹ According to LIED, multiparty executive and legislative elections were held during this period. According to Polity5 the period is characterized by a complete collapse of central authority. For 1998 and 1999, V-Dem’s JCE indicates that judicial constraints on the executive are limited. At the same time, V-Dem’s LCE shows no value, which, with appropriate caution, can be interpreted as an absence of legislative constraints on the executive. For 2000 and 2001, V-Dem’s JCE indicates that judicial constraints on the executive are moderate. Simultaneously, V-Dem’s LCE shows no value, which, with appropriate caution, can be interpreted as an absence of legislative constraints on the executive. According to FH, in 1998 and 1999, the country is partly free with a score of 8, which we interpret as rather not free. As classified by FH in 2000 and 2001 the country scores between 9 and 10 as not free, which we interpret as rather not free. In this timeframe, LIED identifies political liberties as absent, while V-Dem’s PCLI is classified by us as indicating that political liberties were somewhat present.

Following a decade marked by one of Africa’s most brutal armed insurgencies, Sierra Leoneans turned out in significant numbers to participate in the electoral process on 05/14/2002, to choose a new president and parliament. These elections were hailed as the most unrestricted, transparent, and peaceful in the nation’s history (Kandeh 1998). The next election was held in August 2007 and in September of that year, the opposition candidate of the APC, Ernest Bai Koroma, became president. He was reelected in November 2012.¹⁹ All elections on the national and local level were described as free and fair by international observers, including the latest general election on 03/07/2018. In the 2018 election, former military junta leader Julius Maada Bio (SLPP) defeated Samura Kamara of the ruling APC in a highly contested presidential election. However, in Sierra Leone parties tend to mobilize support based on ethno-regional difference rather than providing party programs. Moreover, protesters in Sierra Leone face extensive police repression during demonstrations.²⁰ Furthermore, multiparty election was held over the years, but the opposition often faced police violence and restrictions. On top of that, government corruption is a big issue in the country.²¹ Despite elections being classified as mostly free, authoritarian structures still exist in Sierra Leone, which makes it impossible to code it as an electoral democracy according to our coding rules. Based on our observations, multiparty executive and legislative elections were held during this period, which aligns with the observations of LIED. In addition, LIED points out that elections were not competitive until 2000. Since 2001, electoral competitiveness is acknowledged. V-Dem’s CEI indicates no cleanliness until 2001. In 2002, not real cleanliness was scored. Since 2003, the electoral cleanliness is classified as ambiguous. Moreover, V-Dem’s EF&FI declares that no elections took place until 2001. Since 2002, the overall election conditions are somewhat free and fair. FH rates Sierra Leone in this period as a partly free. In June 2023, incumbent President Julius Maada Bio secured a second term in office following a first-round electoral victory. Nevertheless, the legitimacy of the election results was challenged by opposition groups, and international monitors expressed apprehensions regarding numerous irregularities and the general credibility of the process. Subsequently, until October 2023, the opposition party, the All People’s Congress (APC), abstained from occupying its designated seats in congress as a form of protest against the electoral outcomes.²² According to FH, in 2002, the country is partly free with a score of 8, which we interpret as rather not free. Per FH, from 2003 to 2011, the country scores between 6 and 7, categorized as partly free, which we interpret as rather free. According to FH, in 2012, the country is rated as free with a score of 5, which we interpret as rather free in our framework. According to FH, a score of 6 to 7 from 2013 onward designates the country as partly free, which aligns with our interpretation of rather free. Furthermore, according to LIED political liberties were absent for the entire time, while according to V-Dem’s PCLI political liberties were somewhat present until 2001 and present from 2002 onward. From 2002 to 2006, as per Polity5’s classification, the executive’s authority was significantly constrained by institutional checks. Since 2007, based on Polity5’s evaluation, during this period, the executive’s power was limited to a degree between substantial constraints and parity with other institutions, fitting Intermediate Category 3. For 2002-2004, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were robust, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were moderate. For 2005-2015, V-Dem’s JCE and LCE are both interpreted by us as indicating moderate constraints on the executive. In 2016, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were limited, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were moderate. For 2017-2019, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were moderate, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were robust. For 2020 onward, V-Dem’s JCE and LCE are both interpreted by us as indicating robust constraints on the executive. Sierra Leone is in this period a borderline case between an electoral democracy and an electoral hybrid regime.

Electoral Democracy as of 07/01/2025 continued.

Additional sources (Cartwright 1970, Hayward 1989, Reynolds 1999, Zack-Williams/Riley 1993)