A constitutional debate has erupted in Sierra Leone following Speaker of Parliament, Rt. Hon. Segepoh Solomon Thomas, referring a key legal question to the Supreme Court for an opinion. The debate follows Speaker Thomas’ ruling on the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill 2025. Speaker Thomas declared the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill 2025 passed, despite Members of Parliament representing the All People’s Congress (APC) walking out of the Chamber before the vote. The Speaker formally referred the question of amending non-entrenched provisions via Section 91(1) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone, 1991, to the Supreme Court. Parliament comprises 149 members.
Rt. Hon. Segepoh Solomon Thomas stated, "However, since the question whether or not a non-entrenched constitutional provision can be altered by recourse only to Section 91(1) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone, 1991, is of grave public interest, I refer this question to the Supreme Court for an opinion to be referred to this House not later than three months today to guide future discussions on this matter." The Speaker concluded, "I so rule." This referral shows the significant legal and political ramifications of the parliamentary vote.
The Core Constitutional Dispute
The controversy centers on whether non-entrenched provisions of the 1991 Constitution can be amended by a simple majority under Section 91(1) or if they require a two-thirds majority of all Members of Parliament under Section 108(2). This core constitutional dispute is at the heart of the current political contention. The All People’s Congress (APC) argued that Section 91(1) begins with the qualification, "Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution," asserting that Section 108 provides an exception that must take precedence. The Lawyers’ Society distinguishes between "two-thirds of Parliament," referring to the institution’s total membership, and "two-thirds in Parliament," which may refer to the number of lawmakers present or participating. The APC rejected the "purported passage" of the Bill, emphasizing the need for clarity on these differing interpretations.
An APC Press Release dated 11 August 2026 stated the voting procedure was inconsistent with Section 108(2)(b) of the Constitution. The APC explained its lawmakers withdrew from the Chamber to avoid legitimizing a constitutionally defective process. The party affirmed its position, stating, "No Government, political party, Speaker or Parliament stands above the Constitution." This strong stance notes the party's commitment to upholding what it views as the correct constitutional procedure.
Criticism and Calls for Judicial Review
The All People’s Congress (APC) argued that a constitutional amendment Bill requires the support of not less than two-thirds of all Members of Parliament (MPs) at both its Second and Third Readings. The APC calculated that at least 100 affirmative votes were required for the Bill to pass, given the total membership of Parliament. The party further claimed that only 96 lawmakers supported the Bill during the vote, falling short of their calculated threshold. Critics argue that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the constitutional threshold should have been obtained before the Bill was declared passed, preventing the current impasse.
The Institute for Legal Research and Advocacy for Justice (ILRAJ) questioned the referral of the matter to the Supreme Court after the Bill was declared passed. ILRAJ maintained that obtaining judicial interpretation before the vote would have prevented the current uncertainty and potential constitutional crisis. The Campaign for Human Rights and Development International (CHRDI) stated that the Constitution cannot be amended using procedures designed for regular legislation. CHRDI identified prior publication in the Government Gazette, approval by two-thirds of all MPs, and a national referendum (for entrenched provisions) as essential constitutional safeguards. CHRDI further argued that Parliament’s Standing Orders are subordinate to the Constitution itself, stressing that no procedural rules can override the supreme law of the land. ILRAJ also demanded an explanation regarding the removal of civil-society representatives and public observers from Parliament during the proceedings, raising concerns about transparency.
The Lawyers’ Society argued that a simple majority cannot satisfy a constitutional requirement for "two-thirds of Parliament’s" total membership. The Lawyers’ Society recalled the Speaker's earlier distinction between "two-thirds of Parliament" and "two-thirds in Parliament" when discussing legislative thresholds, showing the importance of precise legal definitions in this context. The Society's position reinforces the view that the total number of MPs, rather than merely those present, is key for constitutional amendments.
Reactions and Future Implications
The Sierra Leone Association of Journalists (SLAJ) urged restraint and respect for democratic institutions amidst the constitutional debate. SLAJ also welcomed the Speaker’s decision to seek the Supreme Court’s interpretation on the matter, recognizing the importance of judicial clarity. The association called on all parties involved to avoid inflammatory rhetoric, emphasizing the need for a calm and measured approach to resolving the dispute. SLAJ urged media outlets to provide accurate, balanced, fair, and contextualized reporting on the unfolding events, noting the media's critical role in informing the public responsibly.
SLAJ President, Alhaji Manika Kamara, emphasized that any constitutional reform must strengthen institutions, rights, and democratic principles within the country. This statement reinforces the broader societal expectation that constitutional changes should enhance, not undermine, the nation's democratic framework. The Supreme Court is expected to present its opinion to Parliament within three months, as stated by Rt. Hon. Segepoh Solomon Thomas: "However, since the question whether or not a non-entrenched constitutional provision can be altered by recourse only to Section 91(1) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone, 1991, is of grave public interest, I refer this question to the Supreme Court for an opinion to be referred to this House not later than three months today to guide future discussions on this matter." The Speaker concluded his statement by saying, "I so rule." The Supreme Court's interpretation in this case could significantly shape future constitutional amendment procedures in Sierra Leone, setting a precedent for how the nation's foundational legal document can be altered.