A significant constitutional debate has emerged in Sierra Leone regarding the passage of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025. Critics assert that the bill was passed using a simple majority vote in Parliament. This method contradicts the constitutional requirement for amendments, which mandates a two-thirds threshold for such legislative changes. The procedural discrepancy has raised questions about the legality and legitimacy of the bill's passage, potentially setting the stage for Supreme Court intervention concerning constitutional interpretation. The contention centers on whether the correct legislative procedure was followed for amending the nation's foundational legal document.
The Contentious Bill and Parliamentary Maneuvers
On 10 August 2026, the Speaker of Parliament, Hon. Segepoh Solomon Thomas, ruled that the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025, could be passed using a simple majority under Section 91(1) of the constitution. This decision bypassed the two-thirds threshold stipulated by Section 108(2)(b) for constitutional amendments. The opposition All People’s Congress (APC) subsequently walked out of the chamber in protest of Speaker Thomas’s ruling. Constitutional amendments in Sierra Leone require 100 affirmative votes in the 149-seat House to be legally enacted. The Speaker's interpretation allowed for the bill's passage with fewer votes than typically mandated for changes to the country's foundational law. This parliamentary maneuver prompted immediate dissent from the opposition.
Supreme Court's Jurisdiction and Legal Basis
Section 108(2)(b) of the Sierra Leonean Constitution stipulates that amendments to the Constitution must be supported by no less than two-thirds of the Members of Parliament. Following the passage of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025, the main opposition party, some of its members, and various individuals submitted petitions to the Supreme Court. These petitions sought constitutional interpretation regarding the bill's legality.
Under Section 124 of the 1991 Constitution, the Supreme Court is vested with original jurisdiction over matters concerning the enforcement or interpretation of any provision within the Constitution. This provision establishes the legal basis for the Supreme Court to hear the petitions challenging the recent parliamentary action. The court's role will involve assessing whether the parliamentary procedure aligned with the constitutional requirements for legislative amendments.
Echoes of Past Judicial Decisions
Past judicial decisions in Sierra Leone have drawn scrutiny, particularly concerning the Supreme Court's role in constitutional matters. In 2015, former President Ernest Bai Koroma removed his Vice President, Samuel Sam-Sumana, from office. This action occurred without adhering to the procedures outlined in Sections 50 and 51 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court subsequently upheld the removal of Mr. Sam-Sumana, a decision that attracted criticism from some observers regarding its constitutional interpretation. This past ruling is seen by some as a precedent that could influence current legal challenges.
Additionally, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report, which investigated Sierra Leone's civil war, noted the Judiciary's shared responsibility for creating conditions that contributed to the conflict. The report noted systemic issues within the judicial system that potentially undermined public trust and constitutional governance during that period.
Upholding Rule of Law and Public Trust
On 13 September 2026, the President sent the matter regarding the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025, to the Supreme Court for interpretation. This action refers the constitutional dispute over the bill's passage directly to the nation's highest court for a definitive ruling on its legality. The move shows the Supreme Court's critical function in resolving constitutional impasses and ensuring adherence to the rule of law in Sierra Leone. The government reportedly had 96 votes in favor of the Bill during its parliamentary passage. This number is below the two-thirds threshold required for constitutional amendments, which necessitates 100 affirmative votes in the 149-seat Parliament. The Supreme Court's interpretation will determine whether the bill's passage with 96 votes aligns with the constitutional requirements.