By: Augusta Osmatu Bangura

The demolition of structures within the Kongo Dam catchment area has raised questions about land acquisition, enforcement and how residents were able to construct homes within a protected area for years.

The exercise, carried out on 23 July by the National Protected Area Authority (NPAA), affected structures located within the protected catchment area. The Authority says the demolition was necessary to prevent further encroachment and protect an area considered important to Freetown’s water supply and environmental safety.

The Kongo Dam catchment forms part of the Western Area Peninsula National Park, a legally protected area. According to NPAA Executive Director Sheikh Ahmed Tunis, the vegetation within such catchment areas helps retain rainfall, reduce water runoff and protect the natural systems that support water resources.

Tunis said allowing construction and other activities to continue in protected areas could have consequences beyond the people living there, including increased flooding and risks to water sources.

The NPAA has maintained that people are not permitted to construct within protected areas, regardless of when they acquired the land. However, residents whose structures were demolished said they did not know they were violating restrictions.

Mohamed Jawarah, whose family home was partly demolished, said the family had lived on the property for more than five years after acquiring the land through the late Ibrahim Toronka, whom he described as a family friend.

Jawarah said the family believed the land had been legitimately acquired and that they were unaware that the area was protected.

He also said NPAA officials had previously visited the area and told residents that no further construction should take place beyond their house. According to him, their house was presented as the final point of construction, while structures farther beyond it were to be removed. “We were told that our house would be the last house. They said nobody should build after us,” Jawarah said.

He said the family therefore did not expect their own house to be demolished when the exercise was carried out on 23 July.

Part of the house now remains exposed, with damage to the roof allowing rainwater into the building. Jawarah said the family has continued living there because they have nowhere else to go, particularly during the rainy season. “I just want them to help us,” he said, explaining that the property represented the family’s major investment and that they had no immediate alternative place to live.

Another structure affected belonged to Kandeh Toronka, the son of the late Ibrahim Toronka. Unlike Jawarah’s case, Toronka said the property came to him through inheritance from his father. His unfinished building was also demolished, leaving him without the property he had been developing.

The two residents said they had believed the land was legitimate and that they had not been informed before the demolition that their own structures were going to be affected.

The NPAA, however, said engagement and warnings had taken place before demolition. Tunis said the Authority does not simply arrive and demolish structures without first informing people. He said notices are issued and residents are given opportunities to raise concerns about structures marked for demolition.

He explained that where someone claims to have documentation for land located within a protected area, NPAA first tries to authenticate the documents. If the documents are authenticated, he said the relevant ministry or person from whom the land was obtained may be asked to compensate the occupant, or the occupant may seek legal redress against the person who sold the land. However, he stressed that ownership and the right to develop land are not necessarily the same thing once an area has been designated as protected.

The conflicting accounts have raised questions about how the structures were allowed to remain in the area for years despite the land’s protected status.

Tunis attributed some of the enforcement challenges to limited manpower and equipment. He said the Authority cannot be everywhere at the same time while monitoring the Western Area Peninsula and other protected areas. He added that patrol operations cost at least Le4 million a day.

He also said the Authority does not generate income through fines or charges and instead relies on government funding and the Conservation Trust Fund.

According to Tunis, stronger cooperation between government agencies is also necessary. He said agencies responsible for land allocation and development permits should consult the NPAA before authorising activities in protected areas.

The issue therefore extends beyond the demolition itself. While the NPAA maintains that the structures were illegal because they were located within a protected area, the affected residents maintain that they believed they had acquired the land legitimately and did not understand that their homes would be subject to demolition.

Whatever the circumstances that brought the structures there, the demolition has now left families facing the consequences of the dispute. Partially demolished homes remain exposed, investments have been lost and residents are left uncertain about what comes next.

For now, the demolished structures remain a visible reminder of the tension between protecting environmentally sensitive areas and the people who have invested their homes and resources in them.

The question remains whether stronger monitoring and coordination among the agencies responsible for land, development and environmental protection could have prevented the structures from being built in the first place.

Copyright –Published in Expo Times News on Monday, 17th August 2026 (ExpoTimes News – Expo Media Group (expomediasl.com)