Recent headlines including “Lands Director Under Fire”, “Abuse of Power”, “Director of Lands in Big Mess”, and “President to Intervene” have constructed a narrative that Sierra Leone’s Director of Lands, Mr Tamba Dauda, unlawfully obstructed the rights of businessman Salim K Sillah by withholding a development permit for more than six months despite an alleged High Court order and a purported conveyance in his favour.
Such reporting omits essential legal, administrative and ethical considerations surrounding disputed property rights within Sierra Leone’s deed registration system. The system lacks complete cadastral mapping and is vulnerable to overlapping claims and fraudulent conveyances. A careful assessment of official records, court filings, historical ownership and policy frameworks demonstrates that the Director acted prudently, responsibly and within his legal duties to avoid facilitating potential fraud or unlawful dispossession.
REGISTERED TITLE, CONFLICTING CLAIMS AND THE ROLE OF THE MINISTRY
The land at the centre of this dispute is located at 4 Hill Cot Road in the Western Area. Ministry records confirm that it was originally State land, lawfully sold and conveyed to the Koussa family in 1996. The conveyances were duly registered with the Office of the Administrator and Registrar General, thereby establishing a recognised legal interest.
Sierra Leone’s deed registration framework does not include a fully mapped cadastre. Transparency International states: “OARG maintains a deed registration system that applies only in the Western Area and does not maintain a cadastre that shows the location, boundaries and rights attached to land and resources.”
This institutional limitation enables competing claims, spatial overlap and exposure to fraudulent activity. It also compels public authorities to act with caution, especially when processing development permits.
REGISTERED OWNERSHIP AND THE DIRECTOR’S PRUDENTIAL DECISION
Upon learning of suspected fraudulent activity relating to their property, Bassam Koussa, one of the registered owners, submitted a handwritten complaint to the Director of Lands. This was followed by a formal legal letter detailing what counsel described as a deliberate attempt to fraudulently alienate the family’s land. Had the Director approved Mr Sillah’s development permit, he would have risked personal liability and exposed the Ministry to claims of enabling an unlawful transaction.
During a stakeholder meeting attended by Mr Sillah, the Director raised these concerns explicitly. Despite this, Mr Sillah attempted to continue his development efforts without awaiting proper resolution of the dispute. This was confirmed by some stakeholders who were present at the meeting.
The Director’s decision to withhold the permit was therefore a prudential and discretionary administrative act. Although no statute expressly compels such withholding during contested ownership, the Director acted in accordance with his duty to prevent fraud, protect registered owners, limit State liability and uphold public trust in land governance.
EXPIRED POWER OF ATTORNEY AND FRAUD ALLEGATIONS
Filings before Justice Ganda reveal that a Power of Attorney granted in 2019 to Mr Shieko Samura, valid for two years and expiring in 2021, was allegedly used to facilitate a purported land transfer long after its legal expiration. Evidence before the court shows that only part of the document was tendered, omitting the expiry clause and thereby potentially giving a false impression of continuing authority.
In the words of Bassam Koussa: “We have made no such appointment and do not want to sell any of the lands in question. We have requested injunctions against development activities and have applied for court cancellation of conveyances made through fraud.”
Legal counsel for the family has applied for nullification of the questioned conveyances and sought an injunction to restrain construction. The court has granted the injunction pending a full hearing.
THE DIRECTOR AND THE HIGH COURT: NO NOTICE AND NO PARTICIPATION
According to the Koussa family’s lawyer, neither he nor his clients were served with any legal documents notifying them of the proceedings that led to the High Court orders of 17 December 2024. They became aware of the existence of the orders only after they had been issued.
In a separate interview, the Director of Lands stated categorically that he had no involvement in any court matter between the Koussa family and the respondent. His Office received no formal notification through official channels and no request to provide professional input to the court. His first awareness of the alleged illegal activity came solely from the complaints submitted by the family and their lawyer.
BASSAM KOUSSA’S ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED FRAUD
Clarifying the origins of the dispute, Bassam Koussa stated: “Initially we thought that Sar Sam and his wife Salimatu who were caretakers of the land, but for a long time had refused to vacate, had sold the land but we did not know to whom, so we took a case against Sahr Sam. Then it came to light that lawyer Campbell had used an expired power of attorney that I had made for one Shieko Samura, made in 2019 for two years and expired 2021 and was never renewed. Lawyer Claudius Campbell used a portion of that power of attorney without the section showing the expiry date to defraud the court that my alleged attorney Shieko Samura had appointed him to sell my land to one Salim Sillah. In fact they took a court order to sell my land and my brother’s land Ziad Koussa and my father’s land Anis Koussa from Justice Ganda using the manipulated power of attorney to Shieko Samura. The case is still continuing. My lawyer Vandi Nabie has requested an injunction against Sillah to not do any work on the land. Also he explained to Justice Ganda that I have made no such appointment and do not want to sell any of the lands in question. We have also started a case to Justice Johnson to cancel the conveyance made to him for the three pieces of land as they had been acquired by fraud. Finally, we requested from our legal counsel to investigate the fraud perpetrated by lawyer Campbell. I enclose the power of attorney made to Shieko Samura for your information. Sillah who is now purporting to be the new land owner has filed a motion to Ganda to be granted permit to build but it was rejected yesterday. Awaiting copy.”
RELEVANT POINTS FROM THE HIGH COURT ORDER OF 17 DECEMBER 2024
Based on the Court Order marked as Exhibit ISYK1, the High Court Order (MISC.APP466/2024, No. 78) issued by Justice Ganda includes the following directives: That the property situate, lying and being at No 4 Hill Cot Road, Freetown be sold by private treaty.
That the proceeds of the said property be distributed according to the parties’ interest In the property after deduction of solicitors’ costs and other expenses. That Solicitors for both the Applicant do have conduct of the sale of the said property.
That the Master and Registrar of the High Court of Sierra Leone, do execute a conveyance in favour of the purchaser(s). That the Honourable Court will appoints an independent valuator to establish the Current Market value of the said property situate, lying at No. 4 Hill Cut Road, Freetown if not agreed.
That the solicitors’ cost is pegged at ten percent of the total sale price of the said property.
According to the valuator, the cost of the land for a Town Lot is Nine Hundred and Sixty Thousand New Leones which is equivalent to Forty Thousand United States Dollars for any purchaser.
Relevance to this rebuttal:
* The order does not state that ownership has been transferred to Mr Sillah.
* The order does not mention the Ministry of Lands or require the Director to act.
* The order does not extinguish the earlier registered title of the Koussa family.
* The order predates the fraud allegations raised by the registered owners.
* Compliance with such an order requires valid service and proper representation, which the family’s lawyer states did not occur.
These factors reinforce the necessity of the Director’s cautious approach.
THE DIRECTOR’S DUTY IN CONTEXT: POLICY, ETHICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY
The 2015 National Land Policy states that the State must: “Safeguard legitimate tenure rights against threats and infringements, and prevent arbitrary deprivation of land rights.”
When confronted with reports of fraudulent documentation and unresolved title conflicts, the Director had a clear legal and institutional duty to act with restraint.
THE HIGH COURT ORDER: WHAT IT DOES AND DOES NOT DO
The High Court Order has been misrepresented in some reporting. It authorises a conditional process under judicial supervision, but it does not declare ownership nor extinguish the existing registered title. Media claims suggesting otherwise risk misleading the public and undermining judicial independence.
MEDIA RESPONSIBILITY AND THE DANGERS OF MISINFORMATION
The Independent Media Commission reminds the press: “Accuracy, verification and fairness are fundamental. Allegations are not facts. Headlines must not substitute for evidence.”
Recent publications have failed to meet these standards.
A QUESTION OF DUTY, NOT ABUSE OF POWER
The Director of Lands acted within his lawful discretion, with prudence and in accordance with public duty. Until the High Court resolves the matter, the Ministry’s suspension of development activities remains lawful, necessary and appropriate.
The truth may not be sensational, but it is always essential
