Sierra Leone’s main opposition All People’s Congress (APC) has asked the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of the parliamentary process used to pass a proposed constitutional amendment.
The case was filed by APC MPs Abdul Kargbo and Daniel Koroma, together with the APC, challenging a ruling by Parliament’s Speaker, Segepoh Solomon Thomas, on 10 August 2026.
The dispute centres on the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025, and the number of votes required for Parliament to approve constitutional changes.
The APC argues that Section 108(2)(b) of the 1991 Constitution requires a constitutional amendment Bill to receive the support of at least two-thirds of MPs at the relevant stages.
With 149 MPs in Parliament, the opposition says this would require 100 votes.
But the Speaker ruled that Section 91(1), which provides for decisions by a majority of MPs present and voting unless the Constitution provides otherwise, applied to the proceedings.
The ruling prompted APC lawmakers to leave Parliament in protest.
Parliament subsequently proceeded with the vote, with 96 MPs recorded as voting in favour and 41 against on one of the disputed provisions.
The APC says the vote was invalid because it did not meet the two-thirds threshold it believes is required by Section 108.
The party has now asked the Supreme Court to determine whether the Speaker was entitled to apply Section 91(1) in place of the requirements it says are set out in Section 108(2)(b).
The plaintiffs are also asking whether Parliament or the Speaker can make a final determination on the constitutionality of their own actions without the matter being subject to review by the Supreme Court.
They have further asked the court to consider whether constitutional provisions relating to Parliament’s powers and the courts should be interpreted in line with the principles of constitutional supremacy and separation of powers.
The APC argues that the Speaker’s ruling effectively reduced or bypassed a mandatory constitutional requirement for amending the Constitution.
The government and supporters of the parliamentary process have taken a different interpretation of the relevant provisions, with the Speaker relying on Section 91 to justify the procedure used.
The dispute comes amid wider political disagreement over proposed constitutional and electoral reforms contained in the amendment Bill.
The court notice says the plaintiffs will ask the Supreme Court to hear the matter after 21 days from the service of the notice, or as soon afterwards as counsel can be heard.
The case could have wider implications for how constitutional amendments are passed in Sierra Leone and the extent to which parliamentary decisions can be reviewed by the courts.
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the issues raised by the APC.
