By Hon. Alpha Ben Mansaray
The enactment of the Mines and Minerals Development Act, 2022, Act No. 16 of 2023, was widely welcomed as a progressive step toward ensuring that communities hosting mining operations directly benefit from the wealth extracted from their lands. Three years after implementation, serious questions must be asked about whether the Community Development Agreement, CDA, framework is truly serving mining-affected communities.
The Law is Clear: 1% of Gross Revenue
Section 143(4) of the Act mandates that every holder of a small-scale or large-scale mining licence shall contribute not less than one percent, 1%, of its annual gross revenue to a Community Development Fund established under a Community Development Agreement. The law is explicit: this is based on gross revenue, not profit.
The Mines and Minerals Development Regulations, 2023, further require that these funds be deposited within ninety, 90, days after the end of the company’s financial year. On paper, this provision appears to be a landmark achievement for mining communities. In reality, the implementation framework has become a major obstacle to development.
Corporate Control vs Community Need
One aspect that initially appeared to promote transparency was the involvement of mining companies in the management and authorization of the Community Development Fund. Unfortunately, this is where many communities believe the problem lies. While companies are expected to finance development through the 1% contribution, they also maintain significant influence over the release and utilization of the very funds intended for community development.
Across mining districts, there are growing concerns that Community Development Committees are unable to fully implement approved projects because mining companies delay approvals and disbursements. This raises an important question: Are communities being denied access to their own resources?
If a company is legally required to contribute 1% of its annual gross revenue to community development, and those funds remain inaccessible for extended periods, communities are effectively denied the benefits the law intended to provide. Some observers argue that companies may continue to derive financial advantages from retaining these funds while communities wait endlessly for schools, roads, healthcare facilities, and water projects.
The Cost to Communities
Today, there is little evidence that many mining communities are benefiting proportionately from the vast mineral wealth extracted from their lands. Farmlands and swamps have been destroyed, rivers and streams have been polluted, and traditional livelihoods have been disrupted. Yet the communities bearing these costs often remain trapped in poverty.
This is not how Community Development Agreements are intended to function. The wealth beneath the soil must translate into a better life above the soil. Anything short of that is a betrayal of the very communities whose resources sustain the mining industry.
Lessons from Other Mining Nations
Countries such as Ghana, Botswana, and South Africa have demonstrated that properly managed community development frameworks can transform mining communities. Through transparent management systems, mining revenues have supported the construction of schools, health centres, roads, water supply projects, skills training programmes, and livelihood initiatives.
While no system is perfect, the link between mineral extraction and community benefit is far more visible. In Sierra Leone, the 1% Community Development Fund should be transforming host communities. These funds should be financing modern schools, well-equipped health facilities, clean water systems, agricultural programmes, youth empowerment initiatives, and sustainable local infrastructure.
Instead, many communities continue to struggle with poor living conditions despite hosting some of the country’s most profitable mining operations.
The Urgency of Transparency and Enforcement
Even more troubling are persistent allegations that some companies have either delayed payments or failed to fully comply with their obligations under the law. If the Regulations require payment within ninety days after the end of the financial year, then the public deserves to know which companies have complied and which have not.
The institutions charged with oversight, including the Ministry of Mines and Mineral Resources and the National Minerals Agency, must strengthen monitoring and enforcement. Communities deserve regular public disclosure of how much money has been paid, when it was paid, how it is being spent, and who is responsible for approving expenditures.
Transparency should not stop at collecting the funds. It must extend to the utilization of every Leone intended for community development.
Time for Structural Review
Government must urgently review the operational structure of Community Development Agreements. Consideration should be given to:
- Reducing unnecessary corporate control over community funds
- Strengthening community representation on decision-making committees
- Establishing independent oversight mechanisms
- Introducing penalties for delayed remittances and unjustified delays in project implementation
Mining communities are not asking for charity. They are demanding what the law already guarantees them. The 1% Community Development Fund was created as an instrument of development, not a tool for delay and frustration.
If Sierra Leone is serious about ensuring that its natural resources benefit its people, then the implementation of Community Development Agreements must be revisited. The wealth beneath the soil must translate into a better life above the soil.
