Did Higher Education Minister Sabotage ReBUILD for Resilience Project?
Among the documents submitted to the Anti-Corruption Commission, Evidence 4 raises one of the most significant questions in the entire USL impasse.
The evidence centres on the ReBUILD for Resilience Project, an international research initiative that was being implemented at the University of Sierra Leone through COMAHS in partnership with the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (LSTM).
According to a letter dated 4th May 2023, Dr. Haja Ramatulai Wurie informed the Vice-Chancellor and Principal of the University of Sierra Leone of her decision to move the project to a local research organisation. In the letter, she stated that she had decided to transition the project based on her belief that another institution would provide the necessary systems and support for effective implementation. She further indicated that the existing arrangement between LSTM and USL would come to an end.
The letter immediately raised concerns within the University.
Just four days later, the Acting Registrar responded on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor and Principal. The University’s position was clear. The Registrar pointed out that the agreement for the ReBUILD for Resilience Project was signed between LSTM and the University of Sierra Leone, not between LSTM and any individual researcher. The University argued that decisions regarding the future of the project should therefore be taken at the institutional level rather than by an individual project investigator.
The University also requested copies of the Memorandum of Understanding governing the project and informed LSTM of its concerns regarding the proposed transfer.
The matter became even more complicated when correspondence from LSTM indicated that Dr. Wurie had taken up an affiliate research position at another institution and that the funder wished that institution to continue responsibility for the project. LSTM subsequently communicated its intention to terminate the existing arrangement with USL.
USL did not agree with that position.
In a subsequent letter, the University argued that it had not breached the terms of the agreement and maintained that there was no provision in the contract allowing the Principal Investigator to unilaterally move the project away from the University. The University further stated that, as the signatory institution, it remained an integral part of the project and that any decision affecting the future of the project should have involved the institution itself.
At the centre of Evidence 4 is a fundamental question:
Who owns a project awarded through a university—the individual researcher leading the work or the institution that signed the agreement?
The documents reveal two very different positions. One side viewed the transfer as necessary to ensure continuity of the project, while the University maintained that the project belonged to the institution and could not simply be moved elsewhere without proper institutional approval.
These documents now form part of the evidence submitted to the ACC and raise several important questions:
* Did the project agreement permit such a transfer?
* Was the University properly consulted before the decision was made?
* Did the funders act within the terms of the agreement?
* What rights did the Principal Investigator have regarding the future of the project?
* What conclusions did the ACC reach after examining the correspondence?
Evidence 4 is significant because it goes beyond questions of funding and administration. It touches on institutional authority, governance, accountability, and the management of international research grants.
As more of the documents become publicly available, many people are asking whether the ACC intends to address these issues in greater detail and whether a further report will be issued to provide clarity on the outstanding evidence surrounding the USL impasse.
