By Lawrence Williams
Sierra Leone’s passport production system is facing mounting scrutiny after parliamentary findings and governance reports revealed that the government renewed the passport contract with Netpage (SL) Ltd without Cabinet approval or parliamentary ratification, thus raising questions about legality, lost public revenue, and national security safeguards.
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) first sounded the alarm in 2025, faulting the Immigration Department and the Ministry of Internal Affairs for extending the agreement for another five years after its 2023 expiration without following constitutionally mandated approval procedures. The committee concluded that the revised agreement was never presented to Cabinet nor laid before Parliament, as required for contracts of this nature.
The implications could be far-reaching. Under the 1991 Constitution, agreements requiring parliamentary approval derive their legal force from that approval. Without it, legal experts say, the renewed contract lacks constitutional validity.
Millions in Passport Revenue, Little Return to the State
The governance concerns are compounded by troubling financial figures. According to the Institute for Governance Reform (IGR), Sierra Leone produces between 65,000 and 70,000 passports annually, generating an estimated $7 million to $9 million in yearly sales. Over the past decade, the total value of passport production is believed to have exceeded $70 million.
Yet, the governance watchdog says that the government has received little or no royalty income from this stream.
The financial trail includes a controversial refund approved in 2023, when Netpage requested a refund of Le5.2 billion in royalty payments made for 2022. The company argued that royalties were not included in the original parliamentary-approved contract and indicated the funds would be used to settle tax obligations with the National Revenue Authority.
While the PAC later agreed the royalty clause lacked constitutional authority, but has not publicly confirmed whether the referenced tax liabilities were ultimately paid.
Analysts warn that failure to properly ratify agreements can expose public revenue to loss and weaken fiscal accountability systems designed to safeguard state finances.
Security Questions Over Sovereign Document
Beyond legality and revenue, the controversy touches directly on national security. The Sierra Leonean passport is the state’s most sensitive sovereign instrument tied to identity verification, migration control, and international credibility. Previous reports of Sierra Leonean passports in the possession of criminals abroad — and instances where deportees holding them were not verified citizens — have intensified concerns about the governance of the issuance system.
Security experts say any uncertainty surrounding the legality or oversight of passport production risks undermining confidence among international partners and border authorities.
Calls Grow for Transparency and Competitive Bidding
Governance experts are now urging the government to publicly disclose the current contract, clarify its legal basis, and open future passport production to competitive international bidding.
They argue that transparent procurement could strengthen both security standards and revenue-sharing arrangements, ensuring that the country’s sovereign travel document is produced under terms that protect national interests.
For now, the central question remains unresolved: if the original contract expired in 2023 and the renewal was never ratified, on what legal authority does the country’s passport system continue to operate?
Until that question is answered, the Netpage agreement risks becoming not just a procurement dispute, but a defining test of constitutional governance and public accountability.
What’s Next?
In the next edition, Fritong Post will unmask the officials who presided over, authorised, or facilitated the renewal of the Netpage passport contract in a manner that bypassed Cabinet procedures and avoided the constitutional requirement for parliamentary approval under the 1991 Constitution. Several high-profile names have surfaced during our investigation. Formal requests for clarification have been sent to the individuals concerned, inviting them to respond to questions regarding their roles, the legal authority relied upon, and the decision-making process that led to the continuation of the agreement.
