The Constitution Under Scrutiny: The Supreme Court’s Challenge to Sierra Leone’s Democracy – Cocorioko
Sierra Leone’s constitutional amendment dispute is now before the Supreme Court, focusing on whether Parliament followed the required procedure to change the Constitution. This follows a ruling by the Speaker on 10…
Sierra Leone’s constitutional amendment dispute is now before the Supreme Court, focusing on whether Parliament followed the required procedure to change the Constitution. This follows a ruling by the Speaker on 10 August and President Julius Maada Bio’s decision to seek judicial guidance before deciding on the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025. While it may seem a simple arithmetic issue, it delves deeper into the constitutional limits of parliamentary power.
Section 91(1) states that decisions should be made by a majority of Members present and voting, except as specified in the Constitution. However, Section 108(2)(b) mandates that constitutional amendments must receive support from at least two-thirds of the Members of Parliament during the second and third readings. The key legal question is whether the general voting rule in Section 91 applies or whether the more stringent requirement in Section 108 takes precedence.
The term “two-thirds of the Members of Parliament” is crucial, especially since it doesn’t state “present and voting,” leading to a debate about whether it refers to the total membership of Parliament or only those who participate in the vote. This interpretive question must be resolved by the Supreme Court to assess the validity of the vote properly.
The numbers make this distinction important. Parliament comprises 149 Members, but only 96 voted in favour of the amendments after opposition Members opted out. If the full membership is considered, 96 votes fall short of two-thirds. If the count changes based on those present, the situation alters. Thus, the disagreement is not about the arithmetic itself, but the constitutional rule governing it.
The proposed amendments further complicate matters, as they modify sections 85 and 87. The Speaker classified the Bill under the ordinary majority rule, while the opposition argues for a higher threshold required for constitutional amendments. The Supreme Court needs to clarify whether these alterations necessitate the special amendment procedure and how to calculate the required majority.
The reliance on past parliamentary practice is another relevant issue. While historical amendments may suggest institutional understanding, past practices cannot supersede constitutional language. The focus should be on whether past precedents are directly comparable to the current provisions and procedures.
The implications of the opposition’s walkout also raise questions. If two-thirds are required, can this be adjusted based on how many Members choose to vote? The answer depends on the interpretation of the constitutional denominator, rather than the political dynamics at play. Constitutional safeguards should not hinge on attendance unless explicitly stated.
By seeking the Supreme Court’s input, President Bio has appropriately positioned the dispute. The referral aims to clarify constitutional requirements rather than let the disagreement play out through political posturing. This clarity is essential because constitutional legitimacy requires authoritative legal answers, not just a parliamentary majority.
The Supreme Court’s role is to focus on the legal procedures, not to judge the political merits of the proposed reforms from the ruling SLPP or the opposition APC. It must define which constitutional procedures apply, what constitutes “two-thirds of the Members of Parliament,” and the implications if this requirement isn’t satisfied. This legal judgment would establish guiding rules for Parliament beyond the current situation.
The issues at stake go beyond this Bill, as constitutional reform derives its legitimacy from adhering to the rules necessary for constitutional governance. President Bio has linked constitutional and electoral reforms to broader governance goals, emphasising the need for procedural integrity. The most effective ruling will provide legal clarity without favouring either political side.
The Court does not need to resolve every political argument but should clarify whether Section 108(2)(b) provides a distinct binding threshold separate from Section 91(1), what “Members of Parliament” includes, and how this applies to the vote on the Bill. If other constitutional protections are relevant, these should be identified through the text. The focus must be on clarity rather than political gains.
Ultimately, the question remains: can Sierra Leone amend its Constitution without following the established rules? If the Supreme Court bases its reasoning on the constitutional text rather than political expectations, its conclusions will endure beyond the current debate. The amendment Bill pertains to contemporary politics, but the procedural rules apply to all future governments. A Constitution is strongest when those in power adhere to the laws that grant them that power.
