Supporters Say Tarawally’s “We Are All Guilty” Remark Was a Call for Collective Responsibility

Supporters of Hon. Alhaji Musa Tarawally have described his widely circulated statement that “we are all guilty” as a call for collective responsibility rather than an admission of criminal guilt or a threat to Sierra Leone’s stability.

A short video featuring Tarawally’s remarks circulated widely on social media, prompting public discussion around the phrase “Everybody is guilty.” The source does not provide the date or full setting of the recording, and supporters’ interpretation does not independently establish Tarawally’s intended meaning.

Supporters’ interpretation

According to his supporters, Tarawally was referring to a collective failure by successive generations to confront the country’s political, social and economic difficulties. They said political leaders, public officials, community stakeholders and ordinary citizens all have responsibilities in efforts to improve Sierra Leone.

They linked the remarks to concerns about national cohesion, political and regional divisions, drug abuse including Kush, poverty and the welfare of ordinary people. In their interpretation, references to people struggling for food, shelter and other necessities were intended to underline that national development should produce improvements in everyday life.

Supporters also said the speech urged Sierra Leoneans to place the national interest above narrow political considerations. They characterized the message as an appeal for cooperation, not a threat against the country.

Debate over political meaning

The speech referred to Sierra Leone’s civil war associated with Revolutionary United Front leader Foday Sankoh and the period of military rule under Major Johnny Paul Koroma. Supporters said these references were intended to recall periods when citizens had united during difficult circumstances and to suggest that such cooperation remains possible.

They rejected interpretations that the remarks called for instability, violence or unconstitutional action. References to a possible political crisis, they said, concerned political relationships and alternative democratic alliances rather than violence or action outside the constitutional order.

Supporters maintained that political objectives should be pursued through dialogue, legal action, elections and other mechanisms provided under the rule of law.

The discussion has also intersected with competing public claims about Tarawally’s membership status in the Sierra Leone People’s Party. His supporters maintain that he remains legitimately connected to the party. The source also notes his long political history, interventions during the administrations of former Presidents Ahmad Tejan Kabbah and Ernest Bai Koroma, and a longstanding political relationship with President Dr. Julius Maada Bio.

Expression and legal limits

The debate has been discussed alongside Section 25 of Sierra Leone’s 1991 Constitution, which protects freedom of expression while allowing restrictions prescribed by law for purposes including public safety, public order and the protection of reputations and rights.

Parliament repealed Part V of the Public Order Act of 1965 in 2020. Whether any particular statement breaches applicable law would depend on its precise wording and context, as well as determinations by competent authorities or courts.

For now, the central disagreement remains how Tarawally’s words should be understood. His supporters say “we are all guilty” was meant to encourage a shared national conscience and collective action, including a broader response to the Kush crisis rather than leaving responsibility entirely to government institutions.