The Campaign for Human Rights and Development International (CHRDI) recently urged Sierra Leone's Parliament to strictly adhere to the constitutional amendment procedures, emphasizing the critical importance of upholding the rule of law. The advocacy group emphasized that the safeguards within the 1991 Constitution cannot be disregarded, diminished, or superseded by typical parliamentary regulations. CHRDI articulated its position during a civic education briefing titled, "The Rules for Amending the Constitution: Why They Cannot Be Bent, Skipped or Repackaged." This briefing was specifically designed to explain the constitutional amendment process under Sierra Leonean law and highlight relevant court decisions from Kenya and South Africa, providing key context for the discussion. During the briefing, CHRDI asserted that the Constitution is not an ordinary law and, consequently, cannot be altered using the same processes employed for regular legislation. The organization further stated, "The Constitution belongs to the people of Sierra Leone. It is not the property of any Parliament." This statement showed the principle that the foundational document of the nation is a collective heritage, not subject to the transient will of a legislative body. CHRDI's intervention serves as a timely reminder of the constitutional boundaries governing legislative power.
Safeguards in the Constitution
Sierra Leone's constitutional framework includes specific safeguards against arbitrary changes, ensuring the stability and integrity of its foundational principles. Section 171(15) of the Constitution stipulates that any law found to be inconsistent with the Constitution is void to the extent of that inconsistency. This provision establishes the supremacy of the Constitution over all other legislation. Amending the Constitution itself is governed by Section 108(2), which outlines two mandatory requirements that must be meticulously followed to ensure the legitimacy of any proposed changes.
The first requirement mandates that the complete text of any constitutional amendment Bill must be published in the Government Gazette on at least two separate occasions before its first reading in Parliament. A minimum interval of nine days must elapse between these publications, providing ample time for public scrutiny and debate. This ensures transparency and allows citizens and stakeholders to be informed about proposed changes before they are formally introduced in the legislature. The second requirement specifies that such a Bill must secure the support of not less than two-thirds of all Members of Parliament during both its Second and Third Readings. This supermajority threshold is a critical safeguard, designed to prevent amendments based on simple political majorities and to ensure broad consensus for fundamental changes. Sierra Leone’s Parliament currently consists of 149 members, making the two-thirds requirement a significant hurdle.
Parliament's ability to formulate its internal procedures is also constrained by constitutional provisions, reinforcing the idea that the Constitution is the supreme law. Section 94(1) states that Parliament may formulate its Standing Orders only subject to the provisions of the Constitution, meaning parliamentary rules cannot override constitutional mandates. Section 108(3) protects certain entrenched provisions, requiring that any amendments affecting these sections must be approved through a national referendum after first securing the necessary parliamentary support. These entrenched provisions are considered fundamental to the nation's democratic structure and human rights framework. They include Section 108 itself, Chapter III which addresses fundamental human rights and freedoms, and sections pertaining to presidential tenure, the composition and life of Parliament, elections, public finance, the Judiciary, and specific constitutional commissions and councils. The inclusion of these provisions notes the framers' intent to shield core democratic principles from easy alteration.
Legal Precedents and Referendums
The civic education briefing, organized by the Campaign for Human Rights and Development International (CHRDI), elucidated the constitutional amendment process under Sierra Leonean law. During the session, CHRDI emphasized the importance of adhering to these procedures, noting relevant court decisions from Kenya and South Africa to show its points regarding the strict interpretation of constitutional amendment rules. These international examples served to illustrate how courts in other jurisdictions have upheld the sanctity of constitutional procedures.
CHRDI specifically referred to the 1995 South African case, Executive Council of the Western Cape Legislature v President of the Republic of South Africa, as a precedent. The organization stated this case demonstrated Parliament's obligation to comply strictly with constitutionally prescribed procedures when enacting laws. This legal reference served to reinforce the argument that due process is critical, especially when altering the nation's foundational document. The South African judgment emphasized that legislative bodies cannot bypass procedural requirements, even when acting within their general legislative competence.
Additionally, CHRDI referenced Kenya’s Building Bridges Initiative litigation, which was decided by the country’s Supreme Court in 2022. This case further illustrated the judicial scrutiny applied to constitutional amendment processes in other African nations, where courts have often intervened to ensure adherence to constitutional provisions. CHRDI reiterated its stance during the briefing, asserting, "The Constitution belongs to the people of Sierra Leone. It is not the property of any Parliament." This repeated assertion showed the organization's core message regarding the enduring nature and popular ownership of the Constitution.
For amendments impacting entrenched provisions, the Sierra Leonean Constitution mandates a national referendum, adding another layer of democratic oversight. This referendum requires participation from at least half of the eligible voters, ensuring a significant level of public engagement. For the proposed changes to receive approval, at least two-thirds of the valid votes cast must be in support of the amendment. This high threshold ensures that fundamental changes to the Constitution reflect a broad national consensus, rather than the will of a simple majority.
Call for Judicial Intervention
The Campaign for Human Rights and Development International (CHRDI) calculates that the two-thirds threshold required for constitutional amendments in Sierra Leone's Parliament translates to 100 votes, given the current composition of 149 members. CHRDI maintains that this two-thirds threshold does not change if some lawmakers are absent, abstain from voting, or stage a walkout. The organization firmly rejected suggestions that Parliament’s Standing Orders could permit clauses in a constitutional amendment Bill to be approved by a simple majority during the Committee of the Whole House stage. CHRDI argued that parliamentary rules remain subordinate to the Constitution and cannot override the special voting requirement governing constitutional amendments. Allowing such a circumvention, CHRDI contends, would undermine the very purpose of the supermajority requirement.
Given these considerations, CHRDI called for disputed questions surrounding the interpretation and application of Section 108 to be placed before the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone. Section 124(1) of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court original and exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution, making it the ultimate arbiter in such disputes. CHRDI stated that the Gazette publication rule, the two-thirds parliamentary threshold, and the referendum requirement for entrenched provisions are safeguards designed to protect Sierra Leoneans from having the country’s permanent democratic rules changed by a temporary political majority. These procedural checks are vital for maintaining constitutional stability and preventing potential abuses of power. The organization reiterated its stance, asserting, "The Constitution belongs to the people of Sierra Leone. It is not the property of any Parliament," reinforcing the message that the fundamental law of the land is a national asset, not a political tool.