By Lawrence Williams
The production and sale of Sierra Leone’s passports have once again come under serious constitutional and financial scrutiny, raising troubling questions about transparency, accountability, and adherence to the rule of law.
In 2013, the Government of Sierra Leone entered into an agreement with Netpage (SL) Limited, acting as a third-party partner to HID CID Limited, for the production and supply of Sierra Leonean passports to the Sierra Leone Immigration Department. That agreement was duly ratified by Parliament, thereby giving it the force of law in line with Section 105 of the 1991 Constitution, which vests supreme legislative authority in Parliament and empowers it to approve government agreements.
Notably, the parliamentary-approved contract did not impose any royalty obligations on Netpage, even though the price of passports rose significantly to the Leone equivalent of USD 100.
Years later, the Audit Service Sierra Leone flagged concerns about unpaid royalties linked to a Contract Change Note, estimating that at least USD 1.1 million was outstanding for the 2022 and 2023 financial years. These concerns were subsequently referred to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in Parliament for investigation.
The PAC’s findings revealed an even more fundamental issue. Following the expiration of the original agreement in 2023, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Immigration Department reportedly proceeded to amend and renew the Netpage contract for another five-year period without presenting the revised agreement to Cabinet or seeking parliamentary approval.
In a letter dated 12 February 2025, PAC Chairman Hon. Ibrahim Tawa Conteh confirmed that the revised agreement had neither gone before Cabinet nor been submitted to Parliament, as constitutionally required. He further noted that compelling Netpage to pay royalties under such an unapproved arrangement would itself amount to a “constitutional breach.” The PAC therefore resolved that the Ministry should review the agreement, strengthen provisions to maximise government revenue, and properly submit it to Parliament for approval.
The financial trail complicates matters further. The Contract Change Note indicates that the Ministry of Finance, in August 2021, directed Netpage to begin paying royalties on e-passports at 6% for the latter half of 2021, 8% throughout 2022, and 10% for 2023, with future rates subject to negotiation. Yet these royalty provisions were never part of the original parliamentary-approved contract.
This brings the issue back to first principles. Section 105 of the 1991 Constitution establishes Parliament as the supreme legislative authority. Any government agreement requiring parliamentary approval to be valid must also obtain approval if revised or renewed after expiration. By necessary implication, the absence of such approval renders a renewed or amended agreement constitutionally defective and without the force of law.
If the PAC is correct that royalties cannot legally be enforced because they were not approved in the original contract, then the same logic suggests that the renewed agreement — concluded without Cabinet or parliamentary approval — may itself be void ab initio. If so, the current operational arrangement with Netpage lacks constitutional legitimacy and raises the question whether it should remain in force at all.
The passport is one of the most sensitive sovereign documents issued by the state. Any uncertainty surrounding its production contract is therefore not merely administrative. It is a matter of constitutional compliance, public finance, and national accountability. Sierra Leoneans deserve clarity on whether the existing arrangement is lawful, whether government revenue has been safeguarded, and whether proper procedures were deliberately sidestepped.
