Pip: MAMA SALONE ~ Lioness of the West Coast has been following a paper trail from Freetown to Venice, and the trail just delivered its final answer — which turns out to be a question the Sierra Leonean government still has not answered.
Mara: Mama Salone Blog's investigative series closes today with documents obtained directly from La Biennale under Italian transparency law — records that show who signed what, in what order, and under whose instruction.
Pip: Let's get into the appointment that may not have been an appointment at all.
Who Appointed the Commissioner — and Did She Appoint Herself?
Mara: The central tension of this final installment is procedural and constitutional at once: La Biennale's rules require a government minister to appoint the Commissioner, and the Commissioner must flow from that authority — not the other way around.
Pip: The released correspondence shows the first letter to La Biennale came not from any ministry but from Office of the President letterhead, signed by Tony Morgan, Head of Strategy and Communication at State House. His opening line sets the tone: "I am under instruction by the First Lady H.E Dr. Fatima Maada Bio."
Mara: So the pavilion team — Commissioner, Deputy, curators, general organizers — was proposed before any government decision appears in the record. La Biennale's president wrote back reminding Morgan that only a competent governmental authority could sign, and that deputy commissioners would not be accepted.
Pip: Then the Foreign Minister's letter arrived. A minister signing is exactly what the procedure requires. Except his first sentence reads: "I am acting under the instruction of Her Excellency Dr. Fatima Maada Bio."
Mara: The post lays out what that inversion means in practice. The authority that was supposed to appoint the Commissioner is shown taking direction from the person to be appointed. As the piece states plainly: "a process in which the appointee instructs the appointer is not an appointment. It is ratification."
Pip: And ratification of a decision nobody on paper seems to have made — no Cabinet resolution, no stand-alone appointment instrument, no budget appears in anything La Biennale released.
Mara: The minister's letter also tracks Morgan's earlier draft almost word for word, and the only copy recipient listed is the Chief of Staff of the Office of the First Lady. The Ministry of Tourism and Cultural Affairs, the body Part I of this series identified as built for exactly this work, does not sign, is not copied, and is not mentioned anywhere.
Pip: The later operational records are just as pointed. Paolo Mozzo submitted catalogue texts in January 2026 and told La Biennale in February that "we have chosen" the pavilion's press office. The press agent then described Mozzo to Biennale staff as "il responsabile del Padiglione Sierra Leone" — the person in charge. No ministry, no Commissioner appears in any of those exchanges.
Mara: The piece also flags a catalogue discrepancy worth noting: the English text says the pavilion is "Sponsored by ECOWAS," while the Italian says patrocinato — patronage. Sponsorship and patronage are legally different, and the post asks directly who selected the exhibiting artists and whether any gallery or exhibitor paid a fee, which the procedures prohibit.
Pip: The series closes by naming exactly which offices owe answers — Foreign Affairs, State House, Tourism, the Office of the First Lady — and urging Parliament, the press, and the Anti-Corruption Commission to put those questions in writing under Sierra Leone's Right to Access Information Act.
Mara: The final framing is unambiguous: "The plan came first. The government's signature came second." The pavilion carried the Republic's name. The Republic is owed an account.
Pip: Six parts, one question — and the documents answer it by showing what's missing where authority should be.
Mara: Accountability gaps at the level of a national pavilion tend to point toward larger questions about how public power moves in Sierra Leone. Those questions aren't going away.
