A Professional Governance Review of UNGA 81 Commitments

By Ngor Vandy Konneh
Son of Kakua and Luawa Chiefdoms
22 September 2026

My fellow Sierra Leoneans,

I followed the statements and engagements surrounding the 81st United Nations General Assembly (UNGA 81) with keen interest. Our delegation presented a confident picture of Sierra Leone in New York: the Minister of Environment spoke at Columbia University on climate action; the Chief Minister engaged development partners on artificial intelligence in education; the First Lady addressed human capital development at Pratt Institute; and His Excellency the President spoke on shared sovereignty, regional data embassies, and the transition from “mine to model.”

The presentations were eloquent.

But in Kakua and Luawa, we have a saying: sweet mouth does not cook soup.

Eloquent presentations abroad must ultimately be matched by measurable delivery at home. That is the gap I want to examine professionally.

PART ONE: WHAT WAS PRESENTED IN NEW YORK

The reports and presentations from New York highlighted several major claims and commitments.

First, Sierra Leone was presented as a climate leader, calling for a shift from ambition to action ahead of COP31.

Second, there was reference to international recognition, including from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), for the country’s macroeconomic consolidation.

Third, there was discussion of a reported US$400 million transformation project in Lungi, involving an airport, conference centre, Hilton Garden Inn and 15 villas powered by 5MW of solar energy within six months, alongside a reported US$1 billion investment in Port Loko.

Fourth, health gains were highlighted, including a reported 30 percent reduction in maternal deaths, an 11 percent reduction in child mortality over 200 days, and more than 100 percent coverage in efforts targeting zero-dose children.

Fifth, education gains were presented, including a reported 2.5 years of learning achieved in eight weeks through AI tools.

Sixth, a new African framework on shared sovereignty was discussed, built around the idea that sovereignty travels with law.

These are significant claims and ambitions.

My question as a citizen, however, is not simply whether these ideas sound impressive. It is whether we have the implementation capacity, resources, institutions and prioritisation required to turn them into sustainable results.

PART TWO: THE RISK OF POLICY DECLARATION WITHOUT IMPLEMENTATION CAPACITY

I call this challenge “grammar-rich, ground-poor governance.”

The danger is not eloquence. The danger arises when eloquent language at international gatherings moves faster than the capacity to actualise those commitments at home.

Three immediate impacts

First, the credibility gap with partners.

International partners may applaud in New York, but they will ultimately verify progress in Freetown and across the districts.

When we speak about data embassies while still working to strengthen foundational systems such as national data infrastructure and data protection frameworks, partners may become more cautious. The result can be commitments that take longer to translate into actual disbursements and implementation.

Second, the public expectations gap.

When citizens hear about a US$400 million Lungi transformation project while continuing to experience energy shortages and the high cost of living, the contrast can create frustration rather than confidence.

Government policy must ultimately speak to the daily realities of citizens: rice, light, health and jobs.

Third, strategy overload.

Sierra Leone has several ambitious policy frameworks, including Feed Salone, the Big Five Game Changers, the Digital Transformation Strategy, the AI Strategy and climate-related strategies.

The risk is that new strategies are announced before sufficient funding and implementation are secured for existing ones.

Three long-term risks

First, the emergence of a virtual state.

There is a danger of creating two versions of Sierra Leone: one that exists powerfully in PowerPoint presentations in New York—AI-driven, climate-resilient and digitally transformed—and another in Bo, Kailahun, Koinadugu and Freetown that continues to struggle with basic services.

That disconnect can deepen public frustration, particularly among young people.

Second, debt sustainability.

Large-scale infrastructure projects with commercial components, such as hotels and villas, require transparent financing arrangements, feasibility studies and clear assessments of expected returns.

Without adequate public disclosure and scrutiny, there is a risk that long-term financial obligations could be incurred for assets whose utilisation and returns may not justify the investment.

Third, the devaluation of reform language.

When transformative language is repeatedly used without corresponding results, citizens can gradually lose confidence in future reforms—even when some of those reforms are genuine and potentially beneficial.

What becomes difficult to achieve under the remaining term?

Trust restoration requires consistent delivery more than new declarations.

Institutional reform requires the domestic implementation of the very principles we promote abroad, particularly in areas such as data governance, accountability and due process.

Likewise, the transition from “mine to model” requires foundational investments in energy, industrial processing and skills development. These cannot be completed within a short period without significant restructuring, prioritisation and sustained implementation.

PART THREE: WHAT SHOULD BE SAID AT INTERNATIONAL GATHERINGS

Sierra Leone would gain more from adopting honest and grounded messaging at international gatherings.

International audiences increasingly value candour alongside ambition.

A more practical message could be:

“Excellencies, Sierra Leone has significant challenges in internet access, data affordability and reliable electricity in schools. Our priority is therefore foundational. Help us electrify schools first, and then we can scale AI. We need investment that delivers practical improvements in health, education, energy and jobs. We acknowledge that macroeconomic consolidation is underway, but its benefits must ultimately be felt by ordinary citizens. We seek partnerships that deliver measurable results, not merely photogenic projects.”

Such messaging would place our development needs at the centre of international engagement and make our priorities clearer to potential partners.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GOVERNANCE AND SPEECHWRITING

First, apply the Kakua and Luawa test.

If a farmer in Kailahun or Bo cannot understand the practical implication of a policy, simplify the message.

Second, apply the one-to-one rule.

For every major international commitment made, attach at least one domestic deliverable with a clear budget, responsible institution and implementation timeline.

Third, prioritise completion over announcement.

For the remainder of this administration, greater attention should be given to completing existing commitments and strengthening basic services.

Fix foundational energy challenges alongside discussions about AI sovereignty. Strengthen Connaught and district hospitals before expanding into new conference facilities. Deliver reliable electricity to communities rather than focusing only on announced megawatt capacity.

CONCLUSION

Grammar does not cook rice in Luawa.

Grammar does not provide light in Kakua.

Grammar does not safely deliver a baby in Pujehun.

History will not judge this administration by the number of panels addressed at UNGA 81. It will ultimately be judged by the extent to which citizens can afford food, access quality healthcare, have reliable electricity and find dignified work when the administration leaves office.

There is still an opportunity to correct course by choosing honest messaging, clear priorities and practical delivery.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this perspective.