The latest political survey released by the Institute for Governance Reform (IGR), assessing the popularity of presidential aspirants within Sierra Leone’s two major political parties, has raised serious questions about transparency, delegate representation, sampling procedures and the reliability of its findings ahead of the 2028 presidential elections.

The report, titled Sierra Leone’s Political Marathon, Volume II – Battle for 2028: Inside the APC and SLPP Flagbearer Showdown, published in October 2026, presents rankings of potential presidential candidates within the opposition All People’s Congress (APC) and the governing Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP). However, an examination of the information presented in the report's opening page reveals several methodological questions that require clarification before its findings can be treated as reliable indicators of the eventual flagbearer contests.

According to IGR, the research involved 2,400 likely voters and 1,025 randomly selected APC and SLPP delegates. The institution states that the survey was designed to capture the views of the wider electorate alongside those of party delegates who will participate in selecting presidential candidates.

While the inclusion of delegates represents an important attempt to understand internal party dynamics, questions remain about how those delegates were identified, selected and interviewed.

The report claims that 1,025 delegates participated in the exercise, but the page examined does not disclose how many respondents belonged to the APC and how many represented the SLPP. Neither does it establish whether the individuals surveyed were officially accredited delegates, prospective delegates or party members who identified themselves as delegates.

This distinction is particularly important because the selection of presidential flagbearers depends on the voting procedures established by the respective political parties. Popularity among ordinary supporters does not necessarily translate into electoral strength among those authorized to vote at party conventions.

Consequently, the central question confronting IGR is whether its findings accurately reflect the preferences of delegates who will determine the presidential candidates or merely capture broader political sentiments among party supporters.

Another major concern relates to the presentation of the survey results under the heading, "Aggregate Vote: Party Supporters and Delegates Votes Combined."

By combining responses from ordinary party supporters and delegates, the report introduces an important interpretative challenge. These groups perform different roles in the political process and their preferences should be clearly distinguished when assessing potential flagbearer outcomes.

An aspirant may command widespread public admiration, enjoy strong social media visibility and attract large crowds at political gatherings without necessarily possessing sufficient support among convention delegates.

Similarly, another aspirant may appear less popular in nationwide opinion polls while maintaining stronger relationships with constituency executives, district representatives and delegates who ultimately influence the selection process.

The report's presentation of APC presidential aspirant Mohamed Omodu Kamara, popularly known as Jagaban, illustrates why this distinction matters.

The survey places Jagaban at 65.8%, ahead of three other aspirants whose displayed figures are 26.2%, 22.3% and 21.4%.

However, the figures are presented as combined responses from supporters and delegates. The page does not establish what proportion of Jagaban's reported 65.8% support came specifically from accredited APC delegates.

Without that breakdown, it would be premature to interpret the percentage as evidence that Jagaban commands the support of nearly two-thirds of the delegates expected to participate in the APC flagbearer election.

The same concern applies to the SLPP rankings, where the displayed percentages are 48.0%, 45.0%, 44.5% and 34.7%.

These figures may provide useful insights into respondents' political preferences, but their relevance to the eventual party conventions cannot be properly assessed without understanding how the results were calculated and how the different respondent groups were weighted.

Questions also arise from the mathematical presentation of the percentages.

The four displayed APC percentages collectively amount to 135.7%, while those for the SLPP total 172.2%.

These totals are not necessarily evidence of statistical errors, as surveys sometimes allow respondents to express support for multiple candidates or use separate approval measures. However, if the figures are intended to represent exclusive first-choice voting preferences within each party, their totals would require explanation.

IGR therefore needs to clarify whether respondents were permitted to select more than one aspirant, whether the percentages represent approval ratings or whether a different statistical calculation was employed.

Describing the figures as aggregate votes without a sufficiently clear explanation risks encouraging readers to interpret them as direct electoral projections.

Equally important are questions concerning the research methodology.

How were the 1,025 delegates selected? Did IGR obtain official delegate registers from the APC and SLPP? Were respondents contacted through telephone interviews, face-to-face engagements or online questionnaires? How many delegates were interviewed in each district and what measures were adopted to prevent duplication or the inclusion of ineligible respondents?

The publication date alone does not establish when the interviews were conducted. The fieldwork dates are important because political preferences can change significantly as parties conduct internal elections, negotiate alliances and prepare for national conventions.

Information about response rates, sample weighting, margins of error and the geographical distribution of respondents would also help readers assess the strength of the findings.

Although IGR describes its delegate sample as randomly selected, random selection can only support reliable statistical conclusions when the underlying sampling framework is properly defined and implemented.

A large sample does not automatically guarantee representativeness, particularly when the total delegate population, eligibility criteria and selection procedures are not clearly established.

Interestingly, the report itself acknowledges that delegates may conceal their actual political preferences because of personal interests, political pressure, financial inducements, party hierarchies and strategic considerations.

This acknowledgement highlights another limitation of political polling in highly competitive internal party elections.

Delegates may publicly associate themselves with one aspirant while privately supporting another. Others may withhold their preferences until convention day, depending on negotiations, endorsements and developments within their political structures.

Such circumstances make it necessary for researchers to exercise caution when interpreting survey responses as predictions of future voting behaviour.

The situation becomes even more complicated when political parties are still conducting internal processes that could influence the composition of their convention delegates.

If the final delegate lists have not been established, researchers must explain how they determined who qualified for inclusion in a survey intended to measure delegate preferences.

This does not mean that opinion surveys have no place in Sierra Leone's democratic process. Credible polling can help political parties, aspirants, journalists and citizens understand emerging political trends, assess public opinion and identify issues influencing electoral choices.

However, the value of such research depends heavily on transparency, methodological consistency and the responsible presentation of findings.

Political surveys should distinguish between general popularity, party membership preferences and the voting intentions of accredited delegates rather than allowing these separate measures to be interpreted interchangeably.

IGR should therefore consider publishing a detailed methodological explanation showing the number of APC and SLPP delegates interviewed separately, the procedures used to verify their eligibility and the results obtained exclusively from delegate respondents.

The institution should also explain how it combined the views of ordinary supporters and delegates, including whether any statistical weighting was applied and why that approach was considered appropriate.

Of particular interest is whether the delegate-only results produce the same rankings as the combined figures presented in the report.

If the rankings differ, that distinction would be significant for understanding the political contest within each party.

Until such information is made available, the findings should be interpreted as reported survey preferences rather than definitive evidence of who will emerge victorious at the APC and SLPP conventions.

The questions raised by the published figures do not, by themselves, establish that IGR failed to interview delegates or deliberately manipulated its findings. They instead underscore the importance of making the research process sufficiently transparent for independent examination.

With political competition already intensifying ahead of 2028, research institutions carry a considerable responsibility to ensure that their findings inform public debate without creating potentially misleading impressions about the strength of individual aspirants.

For IGR, the immediate challenge is to demonstrate how its delegate sample was constructed, how the interviews were conducted and whether the reported rankings accurately distinguish between public popularity and actual convention voting intentions.

Ultimately, the presidential flagbearers of the APC and SLPP will emerge through their respective party selection processes, not through opinion surveys.

Until IGR provides a clearer breakdown of its delegate findings and explains the methodology behind its combined percentages, its political rankings should be treated with appropriate caution rather than accepted as reliable forecasts of the 2028 flagbearer contests. https://thecalabashnewspaper.com/archives/65437