The Institute for Legal Research and Advocacy for Justice (ILRAJ) voiced apprehension regarding the circumstances of Parliament's passage of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025. In a press statement released in Freetown on Wednesday, August 12, 2026, ILRAJ outlined its concerns, specifically noting the Speaker's decision to refer the matter to the Supreme Court only after announcing the Bill's passage. This decision by the Speaker to refer the matter to the Supreme Court only after the announcement of the Bill's passage was a particular point of concern for the organization.
ILRAJ stated that "When stakes are consequential, anticipating complications is better than seeking to remedy them after the fact." The organization also emphasized the broader ownership of the nation's foundational document, declaring, "The Constitution belongs neither to the Government nor to the Opposition. It belongs to the people of Sierra Leone." These statements show ILRAJ's belief in proactive governance and the principle of popular sovereignty over the nation's fundamental legal framework.
Constitutional Voting Thresholds Questioned
The Institute for Legal Research and Advocacy for Justice (ILRAJ) questioned whether the voting threshold prescribed by the 1991 Constitution was properly applied during the Bill's passage. ILRAJ expressed deep concern that Parliament reportedly declared the Bill passed based on a different interpretation of the required voting threshold. Section 108(2)(b) of the Constitution mandates that certain constitutional amendment bills must secure the support of at least two-thirds of all Members of Parliament during both their second and third readings. The Institute was deeply troubled by reports suggesting a departure from this established constitutional requirement.
ILRAJ further argued that Section 108(3) imposes an additional requirement, stating that constitutional amendments protected under this provision must first be approved through a referendum before receiving presidential assent. This additional layer of approval, according to ILRAJ, is key for safeguarding the integrity of the Constitution. The organization also questioned whether the reforms adequately reflected the recommendations of the Constitutional Review Committee, which was chaired by the late Justice Edmund Cowan. This query suggests a concern that the current amendments might not align with prior, full review efforts. ILRAJ's statement noted its apprehension regarding the process, showing the importance of adherence to due process and established constitutional procedures.
Observer Removal and Transparency Demands
The Institute for Legal Research and Advocacy for Justice (ILRAJ) called for a transparent explanation regarding reports that Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) representatives and members of the public observing parliamentary proceedings were removed from the Well of Parliament. This removal was reportedly due to an alleged security threat. ILRAJ demanded a transparent explanation for these actions, which it views as potentially undermining public access and oversight of parliamentary functions.
ILRAJ specifically requested that authorities disclose the nature of the alleged threat, identify who conducted the security assessment, detail the information that informed the decision to remove observers, and specify the legal authority used for their removal. These detailed demands reflect ILRAJ's commitment to transparency and accountability in governmental actions. The organization emphasized the need for clarity on these actions following the passage of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025, particularly given the significance of the legislative process. ILRAJ also questioned why the public was reportedly excluded when parliamentary business continued, raising concerns about the implications for public participation and oversight during critical legislative moments.
Broader Amendments and Judicial Role
The Institute for Legal Research and Advocacy for Justice (ILRAJ) reiterated its prior concerns regarding several proposed amendments within the Bill. These reservations include the permanent adoption of proportional representation, the electoral recommendations put forth by the Tripartite Committee, and the reduction of the presidential election threshold from 55 per cent to 50 per cent plus one. These specific amendments have been points of contention for ILRAJ, indicating a broader critique of the proposed changes' potential impact on the country's democratic framework. Conversely, ILRAJ welcomed certain provisions in the Bill, specifically the proposed constitutional guarantee for a minimum 30 per cent representation of women in political nominations. This positive acknowledgement notes ILRAJ's support for measures promoting gender equality and inclusivity in governance.
The organization also acknowledged the Supreme Court’s constitutional responsibility to interpret and enforce the country’s laws. This recognition shows ILRAJ's respect for the judiciary's role as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional matters. ILRAJ emphasized that anticipating complications is preferable to addressing them retrospectively, stating, "When stakes are consequential, anticipating complications is better than seeking to remedy them after the fact." The organization further asserted that "The Constitution belongs neither to the Government nor to the Opposition. It belongs to the people of Sierra Leone," reinforcing the principle that the foundational document serves all citizens.
Call for Restraint and Future Engagement
The Institute for Legal Research and Advocacy for Justice (ILRAJ) stated that constitutional safeguards were designed to protect Sierra Leone’s supreme law from being altered without broad national support. These safeguards, according to ILRAJ, are fundamental to maintaining the stability and legitimacy of the legal system. ILRAJ also questioned why the public was reportedly excluded when parliamentary business continued, following reports of observers' removal. This exclusion, in ILRAJ's view, raises serious questions about the transparency and inclusivity of the legislative process.
The organization urged the Supreme Court, should the matter come before it, to approach the dispute with independence, courage, and a firm commitment to constitutional principles. This call for judicial integrity reflects ILRAJ's hope for an impartial resolution to the constitutional questions at hand. ILRAJ called on all constitutional authorities to avoid taking irreversible actions while questions surrounding compliance with Section 108 of the Constitution remain unresolved. The Institute affirmed its commitment to continue monitoring developments, engaging stakeholders, and supporting public-interest litigation and advocacy in defence of constitutional supremacy and Sierra Leone’s sovereignty. This commitment signals ILRAJ's ongoing dedication to upholding the rule of law and protecting the constitutional rights of Sierra Leonean citizens.