Sylvester Sheku Suaray: Sierra Leone Telegraph: 10 August 2026:
Sierra Leone’s Parliament was plunged into one of its most consequential constitutional confrontations in years on Monday, August 10, as opposition lawmakers walked out of the chamber after the Speaker ruled that Parliament could decide individual provisions of a constitutional amendment bill by simple majority during the committee stage.
The immediate dispute was procedural. The deeper argument was about who has the authority to change the rules of Sierra Leone’s democracy, and at what point the Constitution’s unusually demanding safeguards must begin to operate.
The test centred on a proposal to establish a Search and Nomination Committee for Electoral Commissioners. The opposition APC supported the establishment of the proposed committee.
Its insistence on a vote was intended to establish a broader constitutional principle: whether Parliament, when considering a bill to alter the Constitution, must apply the Constitution’s two-thirds safeguard to substantive decisions concerning the proposed alterations.
The ruling party, the Sierra Leone People’s Party, favoured retaining the existing system for appointing Electoral Commissioners. But the government’s opposition to the two-thirds requirement was broader. The APC argued that the SLPP wanted the committee-stage votes decided by simple majority so that the same principle could then be applied to subsequent clauses of the amendment bill.
That is what turned an otherwise substantive disagreement over electoral appointments into a constitutional showdown. Parliament subsequently voted 96 to 41 to retain the existing appointment arrangement, under which the President appoints Electoral Commissioners after consultation with registered political parties, subject to parliamentary approval.
Opposition Leader Abdul Kargbo then led 49 APC lawmakers out of the chamber.
The walkout was therefore not a protest against the Search and Nomination Committee being rejected. It was a protest against the procedure by which the constitutional amendment was being considered.
The Constitution outranks the Standing Orders
The heart of the dispute lies in Section 108 of the 1991 Constitution. It states that a bill under the constitutional amendment procedure cannot be passed unless, among other requirements, it is supported on its second and third readings by not less than two-thirds of the Members of Parliament.
Standing Order 44(1), meanwhile, provides the general rule that questions in Parliament or a Committee of the Whole are decided by a majority of members present and voting. But Standing Order 44(3) itself recognises the exception. It says a bill altering the Constitution requires two-thirds support on its second and third readings, explicitly pursuant to Section 108.
There is an important hierarchy here. The Constitution is supreme. The Standing Orders are subordinate procedural rules. Section 94(1) allows Parliament to regulate its own procedure, but expressly makes that power subject to the Constitution. A Standing Order therefore cannot override or dilute a constitutional requirement.
The real legal question is consequently not whether Standing Order 44 can supersede Section 108. It cannot. The question is when Section 108’s two-thirds requirement becomes operative.
Here, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker have taken a textual position: Parliament is still at the committee stage. Section 108(2)(b) expressly refers to the second and third readings. Therefore, they argue, the general rule of simple majority applies during committee consideration.
The APC argues that this reading allows Parliament to use the committee stage to determine, by simple majority, provisions that are themselves intended to alter the Constitution. In its view, constitutional safeguards should attach to the substance of constitutional alteration, not merely to the procedural moment at which the bill receives its second and third readings.
That is the real constitutional question. And it is a serious one.
Why the 96–41 vote became the test case
The APC deliberately chose the Electoral Commission provision as the test. It supported the Search and Nomination Committee because such a mechanism had been recommended by the Tripartite Committee and has been advocated as a way of strengthening public confidence in the independence of the electoral authority.
But the party wanted Parliament to determine whether that constitutional provision could be decided without the two-thirds safeguard. When the government resisted that principle, the vote became, from the APC’s perspective, about much more than the Electoral Commission.
The opposition’s calculation was clear: if the simple-majority principle was accepted for this clause, it could become the procedural precedent for the clauses that followed.
The government, meanwhile, maintained that no constitutional provision had yet been altered. Parliament was simply considering the Bill; the constitutional alteration would occur only if the Bill eventually passed the constitutionally prescribed second and third readings.
Both sides therefore invoke the Constitution. But they are invoking it at different points in the legislative process.
The Supreme Court question
The Speaker has indicated that the matter will be referred to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does possess original jurisdiction over matters involving the interpretation or enforcement of the Constitution.
Section 124 expressly gives it that authority. But the timing of the proposed reference is now itself controversial. The Speaker first ruled that Parliament could proceed on the simple-majority basis and only afterwards indicated that the Supreme Court would be asked to determine whether proceeding in that manner was lawful.
Ordinarily, when the validity of the legal basis for proceeding is genuinely in doubt, the stronger institutional course would be to resolve the constitutional question before continuing with the disputed process, rather than proceed and seek clarification afterward. That does indicate bad faith.
In a country where successive political and constitutional disputes have badly strained confidence in public institutions, the sequence inevitably invites suspicion. The APC sees it as evidence that the process was designed to proceed with or without its cooperation.
That perception was intensified by President Julius Maada Bio’s address on Sunday urging Parliament to pass the amendment Bill. To the government, that was an executive appeal for legislative action. To its critics, coming on the eve of the vote, it looked more like political direction to Parliament.
The distinction matters because Parliament is constitutionally a separate institution.
The larger stakes
The committee-stage dispute is occurring within a much larger package of electoral reforms. The proposed amendments would alter the electoral system, including the use of proportional representation and the presidential threshold.
Critics contend that the combined effect could strengthen the SLPP’s prospects of retaining power in 2028. That remains a political allegation, not an established fact. But the concern cannot simply be dismissed.
Proposed changes to electoral boundaries and the creation of additional districts have already generated questions about their potential political consequences, particularly in areas where the SLPP has traditionally been strong.
The reforms therefore demand a level of constitutional caution proportionate to their political consequences.
That is precisely why Section 108 matters.
The Constitution deliberately makes constitutional alteration more difficult than ordinary legislation. It requires publication, two-thirds support at the second and third readings and, for specified entrenched provisions, approval by referendum.
The safeguard exists not to frustrate government but to prevent a temporary parliamentary majority from easily rewriting the permanent rules of political competition.
The APC walkout
The APC’s decision to walk out was therefore politically understandable, even if it carries strategic costs. It was not walking out because it opposed the Search and Nomination Committee. It was walking out because it believed the vote itself should establish the constitutional threshold governing the remainder of the bill.
The APC is also not expected to return merely to participate in the final vote. That is significant.
However, whether APC lawmakers are physically present or absent does not eliminate Section 108’s requirement. At the second and third readings, the Constitution requires two-thirds of the Members of Parliament, not simply two-thirds of those who happen to remain in the chamber.
That is also why a possible attempt to turn the Supreme Court reference into a question about whether two-thirds means two-thirds of those present rather than two-thirds of the membership of Parliament would appear difficult to reconcile with the actual language of Section 108.
The Constitution says “two-thirds of the Members of Parliament.” It does not say two-thirds of members present and voting.
A question larger than APC and SLPP
Former Speaker Dr Abass Chernor Bundu has repeatedly emphasised the exceptional character of Sierra Leone’s constitutional amendment procedure. Parliament’s own records show his insistence on observing constitutional supermajority requirements in earlier proceedings.
Parliament of Sierra Leone
The present Speaker, Segepoh Thomas, also presided over the 2024 proceedings that led to the removal of the Auditor-General, with Parliament recording 100 votes in favour out of 137 participating members.
That was a different constitutional procedure and should not be conflated with Section 108. But it illustrates why the meaning and calculation of constitutional supermajorities have become politically consequential.
The deeper danger is that Sierra Leone’s constitutional debate becomes reduced to another contest between APC and SLPP. It should not. The Constitution belongs to neither party.
The government has the right to propose constitutional reforms. The opposition has the duty to scrutinise them. Parliament has the obligation to follow the Constitution. And the Supreme Court, where a genuine constitutional question properly comes before it, has the authority to interpret the nation’s supreme law.
What is now at stake, therefore, is not simply whether 96 votes can defeat 41. It is a question of whether Parliament can use the ordinary rules of legislative procedure to make substantive decisions about constitutional alteration before the Constitution’s extraordinary safeguards become operative.
That question deserves an answer grounded not in political convenience, but in the text, structure and purpose of the 1991 Constitution.
Sierra Leone is not just debating how to amend its Constitution. It is testing whether the rules governing constitutional change will themselves be respected.
Be the first to comment