By Alusine A. Sesay
For days now, Sierra Leone has been gripped by intense debate over the proposed Constitutional Amendment Bill and rightly so. The alarm it has raised is neither accidental nor exaggerated. At stake is not a routine legal reform but the very foundation of democratic sovereignty.
Beneath the language of choice and reform lies a troubling reality. Provisions that risk hollowing out democracy, centralising power and replacing popular consent with executive and party control. If left unchecked this Bill could steer Sierra Leone toward institutional chaos and democratic decay.
A constitution is not an ordinary statute to be bent at political convenience. It is the supreme covenant between the state and its citizens.
The 1991 Constitution one of the oldest and most respected in the sub region rests on a clear and uncompromising principle. Sovereignty belongs to the people. Government derives its legitimacy from consent not coercion. It was designed to restrain power prevent authoritarian excesses and ensure the rule of law after years of political turbulence. Legal scholars from across Africa have studied it and Sierra Leonean jurists have helped strengthen constitutional systems abroad.
The irony is painful. A democratic legacy painstakingly built since the era of President Joseph Saidu Momoh the architect of multiparty democracy now faces systematic dismantling by those entrusted to protect it.
One of the most troubling proposals concerns the appointment of the Electoral Commission. The Bill removes mandatory consultation with political parties and traditional leaders while granting the President sole authority to appoint the committee that selects the Electoral Commissioner. This is presented as a move toward independence yet a process rooted entirely in presidential discretion cannot credibly claim neutrality. It compromises electoral integrity at its source.
The proposed introduction of Members of Parliament without constituency affiliation represents a fundamental rupture in representative democracy. Such MPs would answer not to voters but to party hierarchies. Citizens would lose the power to sanction non performing representatives turning elections into hollow rituals and accountability into a fiction.
Equally alarming is the Bill’s treatment of presidential tenure. While it suggests that Parliament may remove a President if a political party withdraws support it simultaneously claims that loss of party membership alone is insufficient grounds for removal. This contradiction creates constitutional confusion and subordinates the popular mandate to party executives. A President elected by millions could in effect be unseated by a handful of insiders.
The proposal to dissolve political parties after two consecutive electoral defeats is authoritarian and unprecedented. Electoral loss is not a crime. It is a normal feature of democratic competition. Smaller parties play a vital watchdog role in checking the excesses of dominant political forces. To extinguish them by law is to criminalise dissent and hollow out pluralism.
The Bill also introduces an indecent haste into the resolution of presidential election disputes. Limiting challenges to three days with only fourteen days for Supreme Court adjudication suggests a deliberate attempt to foreclose scrutiny. Presidential elections are not administrative formalities. They require rigorous examination. Such rushed timelines are the hallmarks of fragile democracies not mature constitutional states.
Perhaps most dangerous is the suspension of criminal proceedings against political aspirants for one year. This provision transforms political ambition into a shield against accountability allowing individuals to evade justice simply by declaring interest in public office. It undermines the rule of law and creates incentives for abuse.
Compounding these dangers is the Bill’s reliance on vague and undefined terms such as unquestionable integrity sufficient financial capacity and unexplained wealth. Without objective standards such language grants excessive discretionary power to those who interpret the law opening the door to selective enforcement and political persecution.
The Bill further departs from the 1991 constitutional framework governing presidential elections. Instead of requiring an outright majority of 55 percent or a runoff it introduces geographic vote thresholds across districts. This distorts the principle of equal suffrage and effectively disenfranchises independent candidates whose support may be nationally significant but geographically dispersed.
By granting courts the authority to determine whether elections may proceed the Bill elevates legal mechanisms above the ballot box. When law replaces the vote as the ultimate arbiter of political power democracy ceases to function in substance.
The fixing of elections for the second Saturday in November contrary to earlier commitments extends the current administration’s tenure by seven months. Coming during a climatically and economically sensitive period this move raises serious concerns about constitutional fidelity and electoral integrity.
Parliamentary arithmetic further compounds these risks. With the opposition weakened by disputed removals the ruling party and allied Paramount Chief MPs are within a handful of votes of the two thirds majority required to pass these amendments. In such a context constitutional change risks becoming a matter of numbers rather than national consent.
Most critically several of the proposed amendments target entrenched provisions that constitutionally require a national referendum under Section 108 3. Parliamentary approval alone regardless of majority is insufficient. Bypassing a referendum constitutes a direct assault on popular sovereignty especially when public consultations overwhelmingly rejected proportional representation in favour of First Past The Post.
Democracy in Sierra Leone is no longer threatened by coups or rifles. It is being dismantled through legal technicalities ambiguous clauses and calculated legislative engineering. The Constitution exists to protect the vulnerable not to entrench the powerful.
Those who manipulate it today in the comfort of power should remember that political fortunes are transient. When power shifts as it inevitably will there may be no constitutional shield left to protect those who so recklessly dismantled it.
Constitutions are not weapons.
They are safeguards.
And one day you may need the very protections you are now so eager to erase.
