This complaint was lodged with the Commission on 4th March 2026 by Marrah & Associates on behalf of Mr. John B. Amara, Assistant Commissioner for Border Control and Management, National Revenue Authority (NRA).
The Commission conducted two hearings on the matter. During the first hearing, Heritage Newspaper was absent. At the second hearing, held on Tuesday, 24th March 2026, the complainant, Mr. John B. Amara, restated his complaint in the presence of the Managing Editor of Heritage Newspaper.
Complainant’s Case
Mr. John B. Amara informed the Committee that he filed the complaint against Heritage Newspaper in respect of the publication titled “AS JOHN B. AMARA NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE… CONSPICUOUS CORRUPTION GALORE AT NRA–GBALAMUYA AND JENDEMA BORDER POST EXPOSE.”
He stated that the publication contained, among others, the following allegations:
“Traders plying the Jendema Border Post in the Pujehun District have accused the Assistant National Revenue Authority (NRA) Commissioner for Border Controls and Management Mr. John Amara of massive corruption that is depriving government of millions of Leones in revenue.”
The publication further alleged that “…on the contrary he is engaged in massive corruption depriving government of much-needed revenue to undertake development projects. The NRA officers only pay for five vehicles into the NRA Account and shared the balance money among themselves, thus causing government to lose millions of Leones in the process for which they are calling on the Anti-Corruption Commission to investigate Mr. John Amara and staff at the Jendema Customs Post.”
Mr. Amara maintained that the publication was entirely inaccurate, false, unsubstantiated, and a disingenuously woven piece of misinformation, which amounted to a scurrilous attack on his reputation.
Mr. Amara explained that before the publication, three individuals, Ahmed Yillah, Justice Boima, and one Hindolo, visited his office. According to him, one of them had called the previous day requesting a meeting, claiming they represented a consortium of civil society organizations.
During the meeting, they raised concerns regarding:
- the issuance of environmental licences for timber export;
- allegations that only three individuals were granted licences which were allegedly transferred to others;
- allegations that NRA officers were collecting Le120,000.00 per truck while underreporting both the amounts collected and the number of trucks crossing the border; and
- allegations that goods were being diverted through porous border entry points.
Mr. Amara stated that Ahmed Yillah informed him that they were compiling evidence to support the allegations. Justice Boima reportedly stated that the evidence they had gathered was “highly overwhelming” and that they had decided not to approach the press but instead bring the matter directly to him.
Mr. Amara said that, at first, the interaction appeared to be a genuine effort by civil society actors seeking clarification on border operations. He acknowledged that some concerns, such as porous border crossings, were already known challenges, and he informed them that the NRA was addressing issues relating to smuggling and border control.
He further stated that he expressed interest in reviewing the alleged “overwhelming” evidence and personally undertook to forward any such evidence to the NRA Revenue Intelligence and Investigation Department for investigation, after which he would provide them with feedback.
Mr. Amara informed the Committee that the discussion later changed direction when the visitors suggested that, had they been other civil society actors, they would have gone to the media. Instead, they claimed they had chosen to come to him so they could find a way of shelving the issue.
He stated that they made comments and used parables suggesting that money should be paid to prevent the matter from reaching the press. He maintained that he refused to pay any hush money and instead insisted that they return the following day with the evidence they claimed to possess.
According to Mr. Amara, they rejected his proposal and continued making statements implying that certain people were benefiting financially while others, including civil society actors, were being ignored.
He further stated that they mentioned plans to call a major press conference because they had allegedly been investigating the matter for about five years. However, they suggested that because they regarded him as a brother, he should “do something” for them. Ahmed Yillah allegedly remarked that throughout Mr. Amara’s years in office he had never done anything for them and therefore had to do something that day.
Mr. Amara stated that he then concluded that the issue was no longer about exposing wrongdoing but rather an attempt to blackmail and extort him. He reiterated that he would only consider evidence formally submitted through the appropriate investigative channels.
He further informed the Committee that although the three individuals agreed to return the following day at 2:00 p.m. with the evidence, none of them appeared. Instead, each allegedly contacted him separately after 2:00 p.m. requesting money and later sent WhatsApp messages asking him to honour what they described as a “promise.”
Mr. Amara stated that he informed Justice Boima that he would never engage in paying hush money to conceal corruption and expressed disappointment that they would attempt to blackmail him.
Mr. Amara further informed the Committee that the Heritage Newspaper article was widely circulated in various WhatsApp groups and appeared on Justice Boima’s WhatsApp status.
He added that the following day, a similar article was published online by the Mirror Newspaper, after which Ahmed Yillah circulated two separate WhatsApp flyers on his status and in various WhatsApp groups.
Mr. Amara submitted that the publication was biased and unjustified because he was never afforded an opportunity to present his side of the story before publication.
He stated that the article portrayed him as corrupt, dishonest, unfit for public office, and as someone deliberately depriving the Government of Sierra Leone of revenue for personal gain.
He maintained that he had, at all material times, discharged his duties professionally, diligently, and with integrity.
He further stated that he viewed the publication as a deliberate and calculated attempt to attack his character, tarnish his reputation, and create disaffection against him within his workplace, Sierra Leone, and the wider international community.
Respondent’s Case
Responding to the complaint, the Managing Editor stated that he did not stand by the publication.
He informed the Committee that he was willing to publish a retraction with equal prominence and issue an apology to Mr. John B. Amara.
The Managing Editor undertook to publish the retraction in the newspaper’s next edition scheduled for Thursday, 26th March 2026.
The Committee directed that the retraction and apology should instead appear in two consecutive editions, namely:
- Thursday, 26th March 2026; and
- Monday, 30th March 2026.
At the time of writing this ruling, the Committee noted that the newspaper had correctly published the first retraction on 26th March 2026, but had failed to publish the second retraction as directed.
Committee’s Findings
The Committee finds as follows:
- The Managing Editor admitted that he did not stand by the publication.
- The Managing Editor apologized to the complainant.
- The Managing Editor undertook to publish a retraction of the publication.
- Although the Committee directed that two retractions be published with equal prominence, only one retraction was published.
Ruling
The Independent Media Commission at its meeting held on 28th May 2026, ratified the recommendation of the Complaints Committee in line with Section 19(6) of the IMC Act 2020, as follows:
- That the Editor immediately publish a retraction with equal prominence upon receipt of this ruling.
- That Heritage Newspaper be warned to refrain from publishing stories without properly verifying and cross-checking the facts before publication.
