Unpacking the Shortcomings of Transitional Justice: In the Case of Post-Conflict Sierra Leone

An increasing number of African states are undergoing transitions from conflict to peace, highlighting persistent infringements on civilians' rights, whether perpetrated by political authorities, driven by economic interests, or rooted in enduring historical legacies. In response to these complex post-conflict dynamics, the frameworks of Transitional Justice and Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR) have emerged as both academic fields of inquiry and instruments of political practice. These mechanisms primarily aim to address large-scale human rights violations and facilitate the reconstruction of a lawful civil order. Contemporary scholarship and practitioners of DDR and transitional justice focus on identifying the most viable and legitimate means of confronting past injustices while fostering sustainable peace. This study critically examines the shortcomings of transitional justice mechanisms, DDR processes, and truth commissions in their efforts to achieve reconciliation and stability in post-conflict Sierra Leone. It is argued that these shortcomings, along with the persistence of structural violence in the post-conflict context, stem from a lack of coordination toward a unified objective and the failure to implement Johan Galtung’s "Transcend" approach. Furthermore, the research identifies key limitations in the operationalization of truth commissions, particularly their inadequate engagement with Track II diplomacy, insufficient implementation of lustration practices, and neglect of participatory legitimacy. These deficiencies have ultimately contributed to the unfulfilled objectives of peacebuilding initiatives in post-conflict Sierra Leone.