Citizens Criticise PAC’s Handling Of 2024 Audit Report

By Rahman

A growing wave of concern is sweeping across Sierra Leone’s governance space, as citizens, civil society actors, and policy observers question the sudden shift from open accountability to what is increasingly perceived as closed-door oversight within Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee.

At the centre of the controversy is the handling of the 2024 Auditor General’s Report. Unlike the 2023 process, which featured widely publicised hearings that allowed the media and citizens to witness government officials being questioned in real time, the current review is being criticised for its lack of visibility. The earlier hearings, anchored on findings from the Audit Service Sierra Leone, were seen as a high point in Parliamentary transparency, where financial mismanagement issues were not only exposed, but debated in the full glare of the public. That model now appears to be fading.

The Public Accounts Committee, Chaired by the Deputy Speaker,  Hon  Tawah Conteh, is facing accusations of retreating into opacity at a time when scrutiny should be intensifying. Proceedings tied to the 2024 audit review are reportedly less accessible, with minimal public engagement, fewer live sessions, and limited real-time reporting. For many observers, this is not just a procedural change, but a dangerous shift in accountability culture.

The implications go far beyond perception. In democratic systems, Public Accounts Committees are designed to act as the enforcement arm of audit findings. They give life to the work of auditors by compelling public officials to answer questions openly, defend their actions, and commit to corrective measures under public scrutiny. When that process is visible, it creates deterrence. When it is hidden, it creates doubt.

Sierra Leone’s public financial management system already faces recurring challenges. Audit reports consistently highlight issues such as unsupported expenditures, procurement irregularities, unretired imprests, and weak internal controls across ministries and agencies. The expectation has always been that Parliament would close this gap through firm, transparent oversight. Any retreat from openness therefore weakens the entire accountability chain.

There is also a deeper political context shaping public reaction. In an already tense environment where trust in institutions is fragile, reduced transparency is quickly interpreted as selective accountability. Critics fear that closed-door hearings create room for quiet settlements rather than firm enforcement, where those implicated in audit queries may escape full public scrutiny. Even if unproven, that perception is damaging.

It reinforces a broader narrative that governance is becoming less transparent and more controlled. Combined with concerns about opposition participation and increasing centralisation of power, the secrecy surrounding the PAC risks feeding public belief that accountability is no longer being pursued in the open interest, but managed behind the scenes.

The comparison between 2023 and 2024 is now unavoidable. One represented openness, public engagement, and visible pressure on public officials. The other is increasingly associated with silence, restricted access, and unanswered questions. For citizens, the difference is clear and troubling.

Audit reports derive their strength not only from what they reveal, but from how those revelations are pursued. Without public hearings, the process loses its force. Without visibility, accountability becomes negotiable.

At stake is not just the reputation of the Public Accounts Committee, but the credibility of Parliament itself. Because when the PAC goes dark, public trust follows.