Sierra Leone’s Parliament has moved the Constitutional Amendment Bill to the committee stage after nearly 15 hours of debate, but beyond the political arguments over the proposed reforms lies a bigger constitutional question: does Parliament have the final authority to amend the country’s supreme law, or could some of the proposed changes require approval through a national referendum?
The debate, which continued into the early hours of Wednesday, focused on proposed amendments to the 1991 Constitution covering areas including the electoral system, presidential elections, parliamentary representation, governance institutions and political participation.
Despite the late hour, lawmakers remained engaged in the debate before Speaker of Parliament Hon. Sengepoh Solomon Thomas adjourned proceedings to Friday, 31 July 2026, at 10:00 a.m.
One of the most contentious proposals is the move from Sierra Leone’s current First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) electoral system to a Proportional Representation (PR) model.
Under the current system, voters elect individual candidates to represent their constituencies. The proposed changes would alter how Members of Parliament are elected and how parliamentary seats are allocated.
Opposition Chief Whip Hon. Abdul Karim Kamara (AKK) criticised the proposed change in a statement posted on his Facebook page following the parliamentary debate.
“People with selfish interests are the ones calling for the Proportional Representation (PR) system. I see wicked people in Parliament talking in favour of the PR system, which is not wanted by the people. We should continue with the First-Past-the-Post system because it helps the people choose who they want, not who is sent to them,” he wrote.
Supporters of the PR system argue that it can make Parliament more representative by ensuring that seats better reflect the votes received by political parties. They say it can promote broader inclusion and reduce situations where large numbers of votes do not translate into parliamentary representation.
Critics argue that the system could give political parties greater influence over who enters Parliament and could weaken the direct relationship between voters and their elected representatives.
The debate has now moved beyond the substance of the proposed reforms to the constitutional process required to approve them.
Section 108 of Sierra Leone’s 1991 Constitution sets out the procedure for altering the Constitution. While Parliament has the authority to amend certain provisions, Section 108(3) requires a national referendum for amendments affecting specific entrenched provisions.
These entrenched provisions include key areas relating to fundamental rights, Parliament, the presidency, the judiciary, local government, the National Electoral Commission and other constitutional institutions.
The gazetted Constitutional Amendment Bill proposes changes to several constitutional provisions, raising questions over whether some of the proposed reforms fall within the entrenched provisions protected under Section 108(3).
One of the major areas of concern is the proposed change to the parliamentary electoral system. The bill proposes amendments to Section 38, which deals with constituencies for the election of Members of Parliament, and related changes affecting the election of MPs under Section 74.
This raises a key constitutional question: does changing the way citizens elect their representatives affect entrenched provisions relating to Parliament, particularly Section 73 and Sections 74(2) and 74(3), which are protected under Section 108(3)?
The bill also proposes changes affecting the appointment process for the leadership of the National Electoral Commission. This raises another question over whether the amendments affect Section 156, which is among the entrenched provisions listed under Section 108(3).
Other proposed reforms, including changes relating to presidential elections, eligibility requirements, election procedures and governance arrangements, will also need to be examined against the specific sections protected by Section 108(3).
The constitutional question is therefore not simply whether the proposed reforms are politically significant. The determining factor is whether the specific sections being amended fall within the entrenched provisions requiring approval through a referendum.
The marathon sitting has also renewed debate about Parliament’s priorities and public engagement.
Some citizens and commentators have pointed to the level of commitment displayed by lawmakers during the constitutional debate, noting that Parliament remained in session for almost 15 hours on an issue with major political implications.
They have questioned whether similar urgency is often demonstrated when Parliament debates issues directly affecting citizens’ daily lives, including healthcare, education, teachers’ welfare, unemployment and the cost of living.
Critics argue that constitutional and electoral matters often attract greater attention because they directly affect political parties and those seeking public office. They say issues affecting the wider welfare of citizens should receive the same level of parliamentary focus.
The discussion has renewed calls for greater public participation and civic awareness on major legislative reforms, particularly those that could reshape the country’s democratic system.
With the bill now at the committee stage, lawmakers will examine the proposed amendments clause by clause.
The outcome of that process will determine which provisions proceed and whether any of the proposed changes require approval through a national referendum under Section 108 of the Constitution.
As Sierra Leone debates changes to its highest law, the central question remains whether the final decision rests with Parliament alone or whether citizens will ultimately have the final say.
