By: Emmanuel Mbowa
Freetown, 25th May 2026– A Fresh debate has emerged at the University of Sierra Leone following the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) ‘s May 8 report in relation to allegations of procurement breaches at USL’s Business Centre, which it cited were “unsupported”, and found no financial misconduct by the Finance Director, but flagged governance lapses and ministerial interference. However, the University has hit back with clarifications and has demanded an apology from the Commission.
ACC’s investigation was instituted following the matter, arising from alleged administrative, financial, procurement, and governance irregularities at the University of Sierra Leone from the period 2021-2023; the same issues the current Vice Chancellor, Prof. Aiah Lebbie, constituted a Committee to investigate.
The ACC cited that “the investigation process by the Committee itself was found to have limitations and challenges which raised concerns about procedural fairness, adequacy of responses, references to prior audits (ongoing or completed).”
ACC’s report noted the Business Centre, as a private company, is not subject to public procurement law, and the four vehicles it procured were “Board-approved” and under budget. On Le 6.5 million in transactions flagged by the university’s investigation committee, ACC said “No evidence of misappropriation or financial misconduct by the Director of Finance was established” and “all supporting documentation was presented, verified, and transactions were cleared” after audit by ASSL and investigation by ACC.
However, ACC cited “serious administrative concerns” over the Ministry dissolving the University Court and overlapping leadership roles. It also said USL’s internal probe had procedural flaws and failed to consult statutory auditors, adding the Ministry’s intervention led USL to cease business with the Centre after 26 April 2023, causing “a sharp decline in sales, stock stagnation, and financial losses.” Significant receivables remain outstanding from constituent colleges, affecting liquidity, the report noted.
The report noted Fourah Bay College failed to provide documentation on overhead utilization due to “poor administrative set-up” and the absence of a coherent university-wide system. 2022-2023 financial statement delays were attributed to SAGE accounting system upgrades and staff capacity challenges. 2021 records were duly submitted. “ACC findings do not support the Committee’s findings.”
ACC said it also found USL “lacks a centralized research grant management framework,” an issue it said needs urgent reform. “COMAHS independently developed a compliant system with international partners,” it noted.
Key ACC recommendations include: the University must “defer to and respect ongoing Audit Service SL audits, ensure due process in future probes, formally recognize the Business Centre’s autonomy, and adopt COMAHS’ grant management system university-wide.”
In a position paper issued on May 20, USL Management said it accepts evidence-based findings of 17 policy breaches from its Court-mandated Policy Sub-Committee but rejects key aspects of the Anti-Corruption Commission’s report on its operations, accusing the ACC of minimizing systemic failures and misrepresenting administrative actions. “Importantly, the ACC report ignores or minimizes the findings of a separate Court-mandated Sub-Committee on Procurement Policy (hereafter “Policy Sub-Committee”).”
USL clarified that the Registrar and Finance Director were sent on leave in January 2024 by the Ministry of Technical and Higher Education because their five-year contracts had expired. At the time, the USL Court had been dissolved. “Neither individual was accused of corruption, nor were they dismissed,” USL said, noting it was not punitive action: “any suggestion in the ACC report that these officers were treated unfairly is unsubstantiated” and argued the Business Centre must be accountable when using public capital.
On the Business Centre, USL said that while the ACC’s legal argument is “technically correct,” it “misses the core governance concern.” The Policy Sub-Committee found: “The BC manager engaged in procurement outside her mandate, in 2021, NPPA explicitly cautioned USL against allowing BC to procure; a warning that was ignored, and the BC acted as both supplier and facilitator, creating a direct conflict of interest under Section 33(1)(c) of the Public Procurement Act 2016.”
USL further stated, “The BC’s separate legal personality does not exempt it from accountability when it uses public capital and performs state-like procurement functions,” and rejected the ACC’s characterization of internal probes, noting that two independent bodies: INVCOM and the Policy Sub-Committee reached similar conclusions on systemic issues.
The paper argues that accepting the ACC report uncritically would have “dangerous implications” for institutional governance. On research grants, USL said a central policy is needed and that 10% overhead enforcement has been absent. On financial reporting, it stated “delays are serious”, and SAFO non-submission must be addressed.
Citing five internal reports from January to March 2025, USL Management said it will implement corrective recommendations, including an investment policy for the Business Centre and a Centralized Monitoring and Evaluation Unit.
It concluded by asking the ACC Commissioner “to instruct the Director of Crimes to issue an apology to USL, and retract the report, which now circulates in public, lacking in balanced presentation.”
The ACC Deputy Director of Public Relations, Sylvanus Blake, on the Morning Devotion, noted that “Never, we will not retract nor apologise, stating, “Our competence is above retracting, and we are not working based on anybody’s perception. This is a professional institution for 26 years.”
He reiterated, “We are reacting to what they have gone public to ask is not possible, no apology, and no retraction from the ACC or the Director of Crimes and Operations” maintaining “This is a professional position, it will stand the test of time.”
Blake concluded that several permutations and calculations are done when they put out reports and findings from their investigation across sectors and the commission is always ready for any eventuality and that “nothing will take us a back.”
