Some pandemics affect more than public health, impacting freedom of expression by silencing voices. Indeed, some pandemics don’t strike the body—they slash the tongue. In politics, fear often emerges as an environment carefully constructed through specific signals, strengthened by illustrative cases, and perpetuated by a general sense of uncertainty. This dynamic suggests that fear can become contagious within a society when those in power choose to address criticism not with counter-arguments but with punitive actions and consequences. The overarching narrative indicates a climate where dissent faces significant pressure, leading to a chilling effect on public discourse. Sierra Leone is currently living through such a contagion: a pandemic of fear, marked by lowered voices, deleted drafts, and truth rewritten to be safe. This widespread atmosphere, characterized by a climate where truth itself is rewritten to be safe, shows the profound impact on public discourse.
Legal Landscape Shifts
Sierra Leone's Parliament approved the repeal of Part V—defamatory and seditious libel—of the Public Order Act in July 2020. This legislative action was widely seen as a significant step towards safeguarding journalistic freedom and broader public expression, addressing long-standing concerns about laws used to stifle critical reporting. Presidential assent for this repeal was granted in November 2020, solidifying the legal change and offering a glimmer of hope for a more open civic space for citizens and the media alike. However, despite these key legislative changes, new frameworks have also been implemented, raising concerns among civil liberties advocates. Parliament passed the Cyber Security and Crime framework in June 2021, and the framework was subsequently enacted later that year. This new legislation introduced a different set of provisions that have, in practice, led to renewed anxieties about freedom of speech, particularly concerning online activities and digital expression.
The expansion of legal definitions under such frameworks has drawn scrutiny from various quarters. Critics argue that the broad scope of these new laws allows for interpretations that can easily ensnare legitimate expressions of dissent, thereby undermining the very freedoms that the repeal of the Public Order Act sought to protect. It has been observed that "when the net is cast so wide and definitions are expanded so far that ordinary disagreement is dragged in alongside genuine wrongdoing, enforcement ceases to be a remedy and becomes a vector of fear." This perspective suggests that overly broad interpretations of legal provisions can inadvertently contribute to an environment where dissent is stifled, rather than genuinely addressing criminal activity. The legislative actions in 2020 and 2021 have, therefore, reshaped the legal environment concerning public expression and online activity in Sierra Leone, creating a complex and often precarious landscape for those who wish to speak freely. The shift from repealing restrictive libel laws to enacting broad cybersecurity legislation notes a dynamic tension between fostering free expression and controlling digital content.
Consequences for Speech
The practical impact of this evolving legal environment is palpable among individuals who previously felt secure in their right to express critical opinions. Dr. Nemata Majeks-Walker, a respected public figure, stated she is now afraid to speak, indicating a reduction in her previous freedom of expression. She specified that she is afraid to speak, at least not as freely as she once did, noting a personal curtailment of her vocal participation in public discourse that reflects a broader societal trend. Journalist Dixon Conteh reiterated a similar sentiment, expressing fear to speak as freely as before, showing a widespread apprehension among those whose professions rely on open communication and the dissemination of information. The actions of authorities—specifically arrests, detentions, and imprisonment for speech-related offenses—serve not only to penalize individuals but also to instruct the wider public about the associated risks of expressing dissent. These punitive measures teach a stark lesson about the potential consequences of speaking out, thereby contributing to the widespread "pandemic of fear" where fear becomes contagious when power responds to criticism not with rebuttal but with consequences.
In a notable case that exemplifies these concerns, Zainab Sheriff was convicted of incitement and threatening language. The court sentenced Ms. Sheriff to four years and two months’ imprisonment on April 14, 2026. Her controversial remarks, which led to the conviction, were made during a political rally, a setting traditionally associated with strong and often impassioned public speech. This sentencing has prompted significant outcry from various groups, including lawyers, activists, and opposition voices, who have publicly criticized the severity of the punishment, viewing it as disproportionate to the alleged offense. The harshness of the sentence, particularly for speech made during a political gathering, has been interpreted by many as a clear signal of the government's intolerance for critical voices, further reinforcing the climate of fear and the perception that arrests, detentions, and imprisonment for speech do more than punish an individual; they teach the public a lesson about risk.
The Cost of Silence
Sierra Leone is experiencing what has been described as a "pandemic of fear," characterized by lowered voices, deleted drafts, and a reshaping of truth to align with perceived safety, according to reports. This environment suggests that a nation does not achieve peace by silencing its populace; instead, it risks becoming brittle. A country does not become peaceful when people stop speaking; it becomes brittle, losing its resilience and internal strength, which are vital for democratic health. Such a state of affairs is detrimental to the long-term stability and health of any society, as it erodes trust and prevents the open discussion necessary for progress.
Restraint on the part of authorities is often seen as a demonstration of strength. When a government proves its capacity to tolerate sharp criticism, it thereby affirms its legitimacy and demonstrates confidence in its own governance, embodying the principle that restraint is strength. This capacity to withstand and engage with dissenting opinions is a hallmark of strong democratic institutions, showing that when a government can tolerate sharp critique, it proves legitimacy. Conversely, a government unable to accept such critique is seen as advertising its own insecurity, revealing a fragility that undermines its authority and the trust of its citizens, because when it cannot, it advertises insecurity. When fear becomes contagious, and power responds to criticism not with rebuttal but with consequences, the entire fabric of public discourse is eroded, leaving behind a silence that is not peace, but a dangerous precursor to societal brittleness.
