High Commissioner Melvin Chaloba with guests.

Deputy High Commissioner James Ali with guests.

High Commissioner with more guests.

Link to Sierra Leone High Commission London

President Tejan Kabbah giving Independence speech.

President Tejan Kabbah and Solomon Berrewa.

Notable Sierra leoneans receiving awards on Independence Day.

Other guests and dignitaries.

Link to other pictures here

Link to President speech here

Link to Statehouse

This is a totally useless article. I suggest stop reading right now and come back to this column next week. Have a nice weekend. If you are still with me, this article deals with the question of whether it is possible that a diamond polishing plant operated by the Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and would-be-again diamond miner Alan Bond may be facing similar legal and reputational challenges in marketing their output.

That sounds like a weird question, and it is hard to give an explicit answer – unless one goes by the letter and the spirit of international anti-money laundering laws, which, increasingly, have become an inherent part of the diamond industry’s compliance environment.

Let’s first take a look at Alan Bond, the flamboyant entrepreneur who also has a well-established criminal record. Bond, the business tycoon (from owning media to almost everything else) who in the early 1980’s was a five percent owner of the Argyle mine project in Australia, is again looking for a future in diamonds.

Says the Financial Times this week: “Alan Bond, the disgraced Australian businessman and American Cup winner, is looking at ways to raise money in London for an African diamond mining project, including a reverse take-over of AIM-listed River diamonds.” The paper wrote this quite matter-of-factly on the front-page of its companies’ section. The project it is referring to is the Kao diamond project in the Kingdom of Lesotho. Alan Bond’s Lesotho Diamond Company controls 93 percent of the project, which – he claims – may produce a total of five million carats during the next 10 years.

The Kao project, reputedly discovered in 1972 by U.S. explorers, has attracted the interest of many companies over the years, only for the companies to be put off by political uncertainty and technical difficulties. The last public company to be associated with the project before it caught Bond’s fancy was the controversial Canadian miner Diamond Works, which farmed into the Kao pipe in early 1998.

The Financial Times tried to be “nice” to Mr. Bond (who celebrated his 69^th birthday this week) by merely calling him “disgraced.” It would be far more accurate to describe him as a convicted criminal who has admitted committing the largest corporate fraud in Australia’s history; this occurred many years before the world started to get used to Enron-type of swindles. Convicted to serve a seven-year jail term in 1997, the then ex-tycoon secured his release after only serving four years, when his lawyers caught a legal technicality that invalidated a judgment on appeal, which had handed out the sentence.

The fraud he committed “only” involved some A$1.2 billion – a colossal amount in the early 1990’s and, actually, still a gigantic sum in contemporary terms. You really must know what you are doing if you want to defraud the public of this kind of money.

The jail sentence was also related to an art swindle centering on the purchase of Vincent van Gogh’s “Irises” painting for $54 million — at the time a world record for a single painting. Bond had borrowed the money from Sotheby’s – but then simply reneged on his commitments and refused the payment, forcing Sotheby to sell the painting to a third party.

Some five years before going to jail, Bond himself went bankrupt. Poor guy. But don’t worry too much, as at some point, in 1995, his offshore family trust (that apparently remained untouchable and outside the bankruptcy) was willing to allocate $12 million to make a settlement with creditors who were owed $1.8 billion. The creditors ended up getting an extreme pittance, something like half-a-cent to the dollar, in a settlement that enabled Bond to get out of the bankruptcy.

Bond very much wants to take the Lesotho Diamond Company public and he is trying to achieve that through a reverse take-over through an existing listed company (River Diamonds, which has properties in Sierra Leone and Brazil). Some people – including some journalists – seem to have a very short memory.

Financial Markets Refused to Deal with Bond

It is exactly three years ago, around April 2004, that Alan Bond’s Lesotho Diamond Corporation unsuccessfully approached at least 10 London brokers in a bid to complete a £30 million float in the London market. The London Times then conjectured that Bond’s links to Lesotho Diamond Corp as a consultant and the size of his shareholding had dampened broker enthusiasm;a float on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) had subsequently been pushed back initially by six months – but that delay has lasted until this very day.

At the time Bond served formally “only” as a consultant to the company, though he also had intimated that the always present offshore Bond family trust controlled sufficient shares for it to remain 30 percent shareholder of the company after the then contemplated float. (His son Craig also sits on the board of the Gibraltar-registered Lesotho Diamond Corporation.) The Financial Times says that Bond today owns 40 percent of the company, with RAB capital (a hedge fund) holding an additional 10 percent.

It clearly seems that the present contemplated reverse take-over of River Diamonds is just another way to go public – after failing to find backing for his own straightforward bid. Mining consultants SRK value the Kao project at US$250 million, making it a quite a substantial property. Actually, the projected production figures have recently jumped.

Swiss Governmental AML/CFT Progress Report

Before elaborating on the question put at the outset on the challenges facing both Bond and Hezbollah diamond manufacturers, a quick word about this week’s Swiss government annual Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Terrorist Financing (CFT) report – a progress report on that country’s adherence to the relevant compliance laws. The Swiss government reports an increase in the “quality” of the suspicious activities reports filed by mostly the large private banking institutions and by major foreign banks.

Banks understand much better that, under Swiss laws, tax evasion is not money laundering predicate offenses that need to be reported. They also understand that a questionable transaction is ONLY questionable if there is a reason to believe that the moneys involved are derived from criminal origins.

And reporting they are! According to the Swiss authorities – and this really applies universally to all money-laundering and terrorist-financing laws – the key in determining what money is crooked depends on the SOURCE of funds. Banks will tell you that it is very difficult to assume that an ex-convict, who has embezzled hundreds of millions of dollars in the past – is not using some of these funds to get a new start in business.

The AML/CFT laws applicable to the diamond industry specify to diamantaires to either refuse or report on an action involving diamonds, which may have been acquired by using questionable (read: criminal) funds.

Would an Alan Bond-owned and operated diamond mine fall in such category?

Diamond Cutting in southern Lebanon

Before answering that let’s see what Hezbollah has to do with this argument. An American investigative journalist, living in Beirut, has been investigating in the past few months diamond manufacturing in diamond factories owned and operated by Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. The journalist comes warmly recommended by the U.S. Department of State; the guy is serious and thorough. Much of his investigation focuses on how the rough diamonds reach the factories.

I don’t want to report details on what this reporter has found because it is his story – and when ready, the report will appear in the major U.S. publication that is employing the journalist. As Lebanon is (again) a member of the Kimberley Process, one must assume that the rough supplied to the Hezbollah factories are not conflict diamonds.

However, Hezbollah is listed by the U.S. government as a banned terrorist organization. One must assume that the funds used to purchase the rough diamonds for polishing come from an illegal (or criminal) source, something one also might assume when someone with questionable funds finances a diamond mine.

These diamonds are not conflict diamonds in the traditional sense. No, in my book, they are simply “dirty diamonds.”

Many diamond traders may shrug this off and argue that this isn’t a perfect world, and there is a limit to how much a trader can do due diligence – or is willing to do due diligence on the sources of the moneys used to secure the diamonds offered for sale. And that applies both to rough and polished.

Some time ago we reported on the Sierra Leone Diamond Company where the controlling shareholder disclosed in a stock market filing that he had been convicted in the past of narcotics dealing, and a range of violent offenses. In the legal community, all moneys used in business by someone with a narcotics dealing background is, almost by definition, “dirty money.” It didn’t prevent the company from going public, nor does it prevent it from selling its diamonds.

The point I am making is that somehow there are laws that are not being upheld. Most industry participants couldn’t care less – and any diamond that is not a “conflict diamond” is considered an o.k. diamond for all intent and purposes. The Hezbollah factories will do well, so will any Alan Bond owned diamond mine – if he finds the diamonds as suggested. But traders dealing with these kinds of situations may not be aware of the “risks” they are taking.

The “risks” come from the banks – which have become far more conscious of these issues and are reporting any transaction with a party they consider questionable to the authorities. Our product is a “sensitive” product – its value lies in the confidence and trust of the public in diamonds. This isn’t oil or uranium. This is diamonds.

The risks became very clear from this week’s Swiss government reports, as is it apparent from the behavior by other banks, including diamond-financing institutions. A trader may not mind purchasing these goods – by just doing lousy due diligence – but banks may think otherwise.

There are diamonds, which, legally, should be viewed as “dirty diamonds.” One may argue about the definition, the circumstances, the “seriousnessness” of the violation of laws, or the interpretations. Some may argue that Alan Bond may not be the best of example and say that he is o.k. now – and we hope that they can substantiate that position if ever asked to. Chances are that the issue will not come up and that one can buy his diamonds, or southern Lebanese polished, without worry.

The point we try to make here is that even if a diamond has a Kimberley Certificate, it doesn’t mean that the stone is o.k. It still can be a “dirty diamond,” and governments are increasingly going to greater length to investigate and prosecute. But who cares? Diamond Best Practice Principles have become largely irrelevant – they are hardly being enforced. Those fraudsters who bribed the GIA to secure fraudulent certificates to defraud the consumers are still among the industry’s most powerful and respected companies.

So who would care about ex-convicts, ex-narcotics traffickers, or Hezbollah diamonds? As long as the diamonds are “conflict-free” even the NGO’s don’t really care. So what’s the down-side? I told you at the outset, this is a totally useless article. If you nevertheless have come to these lines, I apologize for having wasted your time. I promise, I won’t do it again.

Have a nice weekend.

Link to Tacy Ltd

As Sierra Leone celebrates 46 years of nationhood, it is time  once again to start flogging that dead horse of recriminations about what could have been, if Sierra Leone had handled her independence well. Newspaper pages and discussion forums online will once again carry regretful articles from Sierra Leoneans bemoaning how much a wonderful nation with al l imaginable mineral and human resources was ruined by her own very people  after Independence in 1961. It is a known fact that when a fish is about to rot, it is the head that first gets rotten. INFACT, IN MANY CASES, IT ONLY NEEDS THE HEAD TO GO BAD FOR THE WHOLE FISH TO BE DECLARED ROTTEN.

When Sierra Leone wanted  to rot, it was her leaders who first took the heart- shattering route to putrefaction  It would be the most unjust assessment ever to place the blame for the Sierra Leonean dilemma at the doorsteps of the people. From the photos we have displayed online of our major towns, nothing stood out than the industry of SOME of our  people .They could be  seen out there on the streets  hurstling –working very hard at selling , dealing and other enterprising endeavours  to make ends meet. Such hard-working people do not deserve to have a country like Sierra Leone. Some of the Sierra Leoneans themselves could be said to be lazy, unproductive and their work ethic is terrible. However, with good, committed, serious, patriotic and honest leaders, things would have been so different. They would have provided the motivation to the rest of the people to work hard to help build a strong and wealthy nation.

Sierra Leone is the nation that got shortchanged by her leaders. None of the leaders we have had deserve to be exonerated. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission report broke the myth of Sir Milton’s angelhood. The report clearly indicated that Sir Miltoon Margai, the first post-Independence leader, also has a case to answer. All our past leaders owe the people of Sierra Leone an apology for their roles in destroying what was a veritable paradise at Independence. Rather than build the nation, our leaders lined their pockets instead, went to sleep and allowed incompetence, malfeasance, misfeasance and corruption to reign supreme. The feature of Sierra Leone’s history after Independence is the cruel manner the people were let down, impoverished and destroyed by their leaders, politicians, public servants and their collaborators.

In our Special Independence Anniversary issue, we have sought to highlight this problem by publishing new articles or reproducing older ones written on the same dilemma by sundry writers during past anniversaries in the pages of COCORIOKO. We urge you to take your time to read and digest them .They are gems for they provide the answers to the question : Why are we one of the poorest nations on the face of the earth, with all our diamonds, gold, bauxite, Iron Ore and other material and human resources ? They constitutes sombre thoughts  for all of us at  another Independence Anniversary.

Link to Home

April 27 1961 represents a political watershed in the history of Sierra Leone. On that momentous day Sierra Leone regained its independence from Britain. Unlike other countries in Africa whose march to independence was marked by a violent struggle, Sierra Leone attained independence peacefully; independence was virtually handed over to us on a silver platter. It was a moment that was greeted with euphoria – the entire country was agog with festivity to herald the dawn of a new era. At Independence on April 27 1961, Sierra Leoneans had hoped for liberty and prosperity. But they have been terribly disappointed. Forty six years have brought nothing but economic misery; instead of progress, we have seen retrogression. This is more evident today under SLPP rule. The country that was once dubbed “the Athens of Africa”- because of its leading role in promoting western education – is now considered one of the poorest, according to United Nations human development index. As Sierra Leoneans, we are not proud of this status.

This is why in this year’s anniversary we cannot celebrate with the usual fanfare. What is more important at this time is to reflect on our country’s history, in an effort to chart a new direction that will move us from being the recipient of foreign handouts to a competitor in the global economy. How can we achieve this? The first step is to have elected representatives that will seek the interest of the country; having a government with an agenda that reflects the basic needs of the people. The July 28 presidential and parliamentary elections should thus be seen as an opportunity to put the right people in office; the people who have what it takes to turn Sierra Leone around. Rather than delving into a litany of failures by the SLPP Government of President Alhaji Tejan Kabba and leaders of previous regimes, I want to use this occasion of our country’s independence anniversary to educate Americans about our country, especially African-Americans with Sierra  Leonean roots. This is very important at a time when many Sierra Leoneans can be found in the American workplace; when the entire world has become one global village. The more we understand about each other, the better.

The United Sates: The United States of America is undoubtedly the capitalistic engine of the world; it is the leader of the free world and the most powerful country in the world. The United States is also viewed as the “policeman of the world” because of its military presence in virtually all strategic areas of the world. There is not a place in the world today where American culture is not experienced either directly or indirectly. From music, television and the latest fashions, America has taken the lead. American ideas of democracy, good governance and economic liberalization have been embraced by many countries in Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa. Following the crumbling of the Berlin wall, the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the United States emerged as the sole super power and the most dominant figure in the era of globalization.  Because more Americans are involved with companies with a global reach today, it is necessary that they understand about the cultures of other people and appreciate the fact that there are cultural differences.
Sierra Leoneans are among the large number of immigrants arriving in the United States in recent times. Many came as a result of the rebel war that left almost a million of Sierra Leoneans as refugees. More and more Sierra Leoneans can thus be seen in the American workplace today than at any other time in our history. By examining the history of Sierra Leone and some of its cultural features, Americans-especially supervisors and managers-are made to understand that people from another national culture are different. A clear understanding of these cultural differences will in turn help to create an atmosphere of tolerance that is conducive for success in today’s economic environment.
Sierra Leone: Sierra Leone is located on the West Coast of Africa, north of the equator. Sandwiched between Guinea, in the north, and Liberia, in the south, Sierra Leone is a small country both in terms of area (about the size of Maine) and population (about the size of Maryland). Yet it is rich in its endowment of agricultural, mineral and marine resources, with a resilient, generous population. It is among the leading countries in the production of diamonds used for gems and also diamonds used in industry. These diamonds are found in gravel deposits along riverbeds and in Swamps in eastern parts of the country. The name Sierra Leone does not readily evoke anything African. It dates back to 1462 when Pedro da Cintra, a Portuguese sailor, captivated by the sight of the rolling mountains sloping into the sea, dubbed the area Sierra Leoa-meaning Lion Mountain. The British later changed the name to Sierra Leone. A former British colonial possession, Sierra Leone became independent on April 27 1961.

Freetown, its capital was founded in 1787 by British philanthropists as a home for freed slaves. The British brought four quite distinct groups of slaves to Sierra Leone: The Black Poor, former domestic servants who were freed when courts forbade slavery on British soil, came in 1787; The Nova Scotians, former North American slaves who fought on the side of the British during the American war of Independence, came in 1792; The Maroons, escaped slaves who before their capture had led a free life in the mountains of Jamaica, came in 1800. The last and most important group-the Recaptives, were taken off slave ships captured by the British Navy after 1807. The Recaptives came from many parts of Africa such as modern-day Republics of Togo, Benin, Senegal, Gambia, Nigeria and Ghana. These four groups of slaves gradually merged to form the Krio ethnic group. Today, many remnants of these distinct cultures can still be found in Freetown, and they have all in some way influenced Sierra Leonean cuisine and culture, giving it something in common with those in many distant parts of Africa.

Athens of Africa: The British made Freetown a Crown Colony in 1808, and a steady stream of colonial administrators, teachers and missionaries came throughout the 19th century. Because of the leading role it played in the promotion of western education and the spread of Christianity, the city was dubbed the “Athens of Africa” – a center of learning, just as Athens was to the rest of Europe. Fourah Bay College, founded in 1827, was the first modern university in Sub-Saharan Africa.  Freetown became an educational lighthouse to the rest of West Africa. Ghanians, Nigerians, Gambians and many more came to Sierra Leone to study. Many returned as administrators, teachers and leaders in their countries.   

Sierra Leone has a population of about 5,000,000 people. Most of the men are farmers. But many grow only enough food for their families. Many of the women run profitable businesses selling goods in local markets. Most of Sierra Leone’s people are black Africans who form 12 main ethnic groups. About a third of the people belong to the Mende group. They live in the Southern and South-Eastern parts of the country. About a third of the people belong to the Temne ethnic group and they live in the Northern part of the country. Less than 2 percent of the people are Creoles, who live in or near Freetown. These are the direct descendants of slaves and they speak Krio, a local form of English. English is the official language, but most of the people speak local African languages.

Sierra Leone has a democratically elected government. The Government is headed by a president who is elected to a five-year term. There is both a ruling party (the Sierra Leone Peoples Party) and an opposition party (the All People’s Congress). The house of representatives is Sierra Leone’s law-making body. There is an Independent Judiciary that interprets the law. Sierra Leone’s 1991 constitution is modeled after that of the United States. In the former Cabinet system, ministers are chosen from among the members in parliament. Under the 1991 constitution, ministers are appointed by the president; they do not have to be members of parliament. The 1991 constitution, like the American constitution, divides government into three watertight compartments (Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary) with emphasis on the Rule of Law, and Fundamental Human Rights.

The country has a free market economy. Individuals are free to own and run their own businesses. Even though essential services like electricity are under government control, most of what use to be government-run enterprises are now under the control of private investors. Some are jointly owned by the government and individual investors. Essentially, there is economic liberalization, with less government control.

Culture: Sierra Leone, like many other African countries, has traditions and customs that are unique to it. Respect for elders and authority is part of our culture. Children are forbidden to use fowl language in the presence of elders. Within the family level, the young ones are expected to greet the older ones. Since most of the people largely depend on farming for their livelihood, the extended family becomes very important – the more children or relatives one has, the more hands to help in the farm work. Great respect is given not only to old age but also to those in authority. Respect is accorded to those in authority regardless of age. It is not uncommon to hear an old man addressing a young man as “Sir.”  This goes to show how much respect is attached to those in authority. Education is regarded as the key to success. Those with a very sound education are held in very high esteem. They are often viewed by the illiterate population, not as Africans, but as “white men.” Not only do they speak a language they cannot comprehend, but they dress in a way that is quite different.

Being proficient in English and putting on a business suit is synonymous with being a White Man.

While a majority of the people dress in their native African attire, most educated Africans dress like any other European or American. It is important to note that because of their exposure, most educated Sierra Leoneans are generally geocentric – they have a broader understanding about their African culture, European culture and American culture. Western education was introduced by both American and European missionaries. The United Methodist Church and the American Methodist Episcopal are just two American missions that played a pivotal role in the educational development of Sierra Leone.

Having looked at the history of Sierra Leone, what are the main characteristics of its culture? Or what is the best way to think about Sierra Leone and International Management?  Since we cannot look at the various cultural facets in detail, it is important that we focus on the national culture since this is more important in cross cultural communication.

Essentially, Sierra Leone is a Collectivist society, characterized by a close-nit family. The people have large extended families that are quite caring and supportive. Here, the emphasis is on “We” and not “I” as is the case in Individualistic societies like the United States and the United Kingdom. Being a Collectivist society, the country has a High Context Culture. The people are usually indirect; more verbally implicit. The people in their conversations or discussions tend to be more subtle. People use metaphors and proverbs when communicating, and they merely suggest or offer alternatives rather than saying it like it is. There is an African saying that “proverbs are the palm wine with which words are eaten.” This goes to show the love of superfluity in conversation; a way of beating about the bush instead of heating the nail on the head. Eye-contact is less, but this is more out of courtesy.

There is in Sierra Leone culture a high power distance. Age and authority are highly regarded. There is a high value on social, occupational or political rankings. The majority of the people have less access to and direct communication with individuals in high positions. Unlike the United States where the use of time is very precise, the use of time in Sierra Leone is less precise. The people take a somewhat less strict view of time, attach less precision to scheduling and place less importance on postponement and delay. It is not uncommon for a minister or a permanent secretary to arrive late at a very important meeting. People conceive of time in a more fluid, elastic or even circular fashion; they are fatalistic.

It is pertinent to note that with the era of Globalization, these characteristics or features in Sierra Leone Culture are gradually changing, especially when it comes to the use of time. Today, foreign investors abound in the country. Most of them are from Europe and America, where business is conducted on schedule. Americans in particular, are punctual in keeping appointments; they take deadlines very seriously and are very much concerned about delays. In dealing with Sierra Leoneans, Americans may find it unacceptable when there is a delay in implementing a business plan; when appointments to meetings are not adhered to. If Sierra Leoneans are serious about playing a meaningful role in today’s global economic environment, they must be more precise in their use of time.

With the current fast pace in technological changes, Sierra Leoneans are learning to be more direct and precise in communicating to the rest of the world. The use of the cell phone and the internet has no room for the unnecessary use of words in communication. Today, communication is very brief but to the point. If Sierra Leoneans are to succeed in today’s era of globalization, they must adjust to the rapid changes that are taking place. We must adhere to American standards of transparency and accountability in the way we conduct business. We have to put on the “golden straitjacket” – one-size fits all-prepared for us by America. We have to move fast with the rest of the herd or we risk becoming a road-kill.   

Link to Home

FOR centuries the African continent has been under brutal foreign occupation by the Arabs that invaded North Africa and the Europeans who invaded all parts of Africa.

After centuries of slavery and colonisation, the Europeans began to grant independence to the African countries. The first to gain this so-called independence were Sudan in 1956, Ghana in 1957 and Nigeria in 1960. Other African countries followed and South Africa became the last in 1994.

But the nagging question remains: Are the African countries actually independent?

Indications exist that Europe and the US still, through manipulation and military coups, determine who rules African countries.

For close to 20 years, the Structural Adjustment Programme, with its devastating effects, was forced on the African countries by Europe and the US. Realizing that it was unworkable, they later withdrew it. But they refused to render any apology or compensation to the African countries it had devastated for decades.

Many African leaders do not read their annual budgets until they receive pledges for financial hand-outs from Europe and the US. Independent countries in Europe, America and Asia have set up scientific, technological and industrial manufacturing systems with which they developed essential products, built their economies, military and security systems, and social-welfare systems.

But in Africa, Nigerian rulers use the Nigerian independence to waste the abundant natural and human resources of that country; they steal billions of dollars and hide them away in European and American banks. While they ravage the country, Nigeria’s productive population continues to scatter all over the world looking for survival.
This week a radio advert had somebody crying that he has a dream that the high rate of killing, rape, diseases, racial hate and xenophobia in South African might soon lead to the demise of the country. The advert ended by questioning whether that was what South Africans had done with their freedom.

The waste of abundant human and natural resources in Nigeria, dependency on foreign hand-outs by most African countries, and violent crime and xenophobia in South Africa, all seem to be rooted in the consumer tendencies of the Africans. And no country will actually be independent if it consumes rather than produces.

Recently Ghana celebrated its 50 years of independence. The discussion hosted by the West African Students Union (WASU) at Wits University suggested that Ghana had not made any meaningful achievement in the 50 years. On April 27 three African countries – Sierra Leone, Togo and South Africa – celebrate their independence. Within this period, Nigeria held elections for a new president, governors and legislators.

WASU, held a seminar on April 26 with the theme: Interrogating the Independence of African Countries. Five speakers from Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Togo and South Africa took part.

Link to VuvuzelaOnline – African independence still a debatable question