By Chernor M. Jalloh

The recent announcement of a €100,000 grant awarded to Milton Margai Technical University (MMTU) by the European Union, under the Sierra Leone Education in Entrepreneurial Pedagogy and Skills (SLEEK) Project, has been met with widespread acclaim. The initiative promises to revamp entrepreneurship training, support innovation hubs, and bridge academia with business. On the surface, this sounds like the kind of support Sierra Leone urgently needs to address youth unemployment and skills deficits. Yet beneath the applause lies a pressing question: are we once again surrendering our developmental vision to donor-driven agendas?

The Dual Nature of Foreign Aid: A Necessary Intervention or Structural Obstacle?

There is no denying that donor-funded projects such as SLEEK offer immediate and visible benefits. Curriculum development, faculty training, and community outreach initiatives—especially to marginalized groups like market women—are all commendable. But the problem with foreign aid lies not only in what it offers, but in what it can displace.

Dambisa Moyo, in her provocative book Dead Aid, argues that aid has become a crutch that erodes institutional strength, encourages complacency, and weakens governance. “Aid,” she writes, “has become the opium for African governments.” The donor often dictates what qualifies as innovation, who is eligible for support, and how success is measured—leaving the deeper, structural needs of the population either under-addressed or misunderstood.

In the case of SLEEK, the project—despite being framed in the language of “capacity-building”—is externally designed. The €100,000 grant is just a fraction of a broader €700,000 envelope. Its implementation is likely to be shaped more by Brussels’ development logic than Freetown’s local priorities. Is this truly the kind of autonomy we aspire to for our young people?

Continental Lessons: Rwanda and Burkina Faso as Beacons

If Sierra Leone seeks to move beyond the cycle of dependence, it must draw inspiration from models within the continent. Rwanda, for example, has markedly reduced its dependence on aid through strategic investments in education, ICT, and governance rooted in national ownership. Its development philosophy emphasizes self-reliance, effective taxation, and disciplined policymaking—making donor support supplementary rather than central.

Similarly, Burkina Faso under Captain Ibrahim Traoré has chosen to prioritize patriotic education, agricultural productivity, and indigenous solutions over foreign prescriptions. Despite sanctions and global resistance, it has doubled down on empowering its youth through localized means. Their message is bold and clear: We will not beg our way to development. These examples remind us that resilience is not built on grants—but on grounded national vision.

Revisiting the Aid Debate: Sachs vs. Moyo

To be fair, perspectives on aid vary. Jeffrey Sachs, in The End of Poverty, contends that aid can play a critical role in ending extreme poverty—if it is targeted, accountable, and catalytic. He argues that aid should be seen as a startup investment for poor countries, helping them build infrastructure, health systems, and institutions.

Yet Sachs himself acknowledges that aid must not become a permanent fixture. It should serve as a bridge to self-sufficiency, not a permanent dependency. Unfortunately, in countries like Sierra Leone, aid often mutates into an industry unto itself. Projects appear and disappear in cycles, while the underlying systemic deficiencies remain intact.

Development as Freedom: Amartya Sen’s Lens

Amartya Sen’s Development as Freedom offers a richer philosophical framework. Sen posits that real development occurs when individuals have the capacity to make choices, act independently, and lead lives they value. In this sense, freedom is not just the end of development—it is its means.

If SLEEK genuinely empowers Sierra Leonean youth to innovate, problem-solve, and lead enterprises, then it deserves praise. But if it merely trains them to fit within a donor-mandated framework, offering temporary stipends without sustainable ownership, then it risks reinforcing the very limitations it claims to address.

Youth empowerment must be about liberation, not entanglement.

Toward a New National Consensus

Let us be clear: the issue is not with MMTU accepting a grant. The concern is that foreign aid continues to dominate the national development narrative, crowding out local solutions and policy ambition. For far too long, development has been externally choreographed.

It is time for Sierra Leone to forge a new national consensus—one that:

• Prioritizes home-grown financing mechanisms, such as youth development funds, diaspora bonds, and public-private ventures;
• Builds indigenous research institutions and curriculum frameworks independent of donor interference;
• Integrates traditional knowledge systems and informal sector insights into national planning;
• Incentivizes rural innovation, expanding opportunity beyond urban enclaves.

A Call to Youth and Policymakers

To Sierra Leonean youth: your development should not hinge on grants. Take initiative. Collaborate. Experiment. Build with pride and purpose. Transform frustration into innovation, and let patriotism guide your enterprise. To our policymakers and educational leaders: funding national innovation is not the EU’s job—it is ours. Reallocate a portion of our mining royalties, communication taxes, and legislative allowances to fund national innovation schemes. Let us own the tools of our transformation. We must move from aid to autonomy, from being recipients to becoming architects of our own future. Our youth deserve a Sierra Leone that believes in them—not because others have paid us to, but because we have chosen to invest in ourselves.

Copyright –Published in Expo Times News on Friday, 20th June, 2025 (ExpoTimes News – Expo Media Group (expomediasl.com)