Deal #3005

Some reports state free prior and informed consent, others state not consulted. Generally recongnised that Chiefs signed the land leases without fully understanding what they were signing. "SLA negotiated directly with local chiefs, therefore bypassing the national government (and its regulations) and neither landowners nor local people had copies of the lease. In several cases, community leaders thought they were signing receipts for Christmas gifts when they were in fact signing documents giving their lands away"

Local people claim to have been assured that five percent of profits from the plantation will be paid to landowners

the company announced the creation of 3,000 to 5,000 jobs; The SLA director claims that 5 % of its profits (which he estimates could eventually amount to USD 10 to 40 million) will go directly into the Bureh Masseh Chiefdom Fund. Local people claim to have been assured that five percent of profits from the plantation will be paid to landowners, and that they had also been promised schools, health centers, wells and scholarships for schoolchildren. Yet, without an agreement with the government, an ESHIA, or any government oversight, there are no guarantees that the company will fulfill any of its promises.

the company announced the creation of 3,000 to 5,000 jobs; The SLA director claims that 5 % of its profits (which he estimates could eventually amount to USD 10 to 40 million) will go directly into the Bureh Masseh Chiefdom Fund. Local people claim to have been assured that five percent of profits from the plantation will be paid to landowners, and that they had also been promised schools, health centers, wells and scholarships for schoolchildren. Yet, without an agreement with the government, an ESHIA, or any government oversight, there are no guarantees that the company will fulfill any of its promises. It is not clear whether these benefits have materialized or to what extent.

The community along with NGOs such as Namati helped to bring the case to court over three years of unpaid rental fees. As a result, the court ruled in favour of the communities and the investor was ordered to hand the land back and pay unpaid rental fees. Furthermore, an injunction was granted restricting the company from any dealings on the land, from entering the land, or from moving any assets out of Sierra Leone. A bailiff was tasked to sell the assets of the company to reimburse the workers and the land-owners. It seems however that due to errors or malpractices between the bailiff and land-owners committee of the three chiefdoms, the money never reached the intended beneficiaries.