Sierra Leone’s controversial Constitutional Amendment Bill is facing mounting legal challenges, with the opposition All People’s Congress and members of the Lawyers’ Society separately turning to the Supreme Court to challenge the parliamentary process that led to its purported passage.
The legal challenges come as President Julius Maada Bio faces a decision on whether to assent to the Bill, return it to Parliament or await further constitutional clarification.
Parliament declared the Constitution of Sierra Leone Amendment Bill, 2025 passed on 10 August after a highly contentious sitting in which most opposition MPs walked out of the chamber.
The dispute centres on the constitutional voting threshold.
The Speaker, Segepoh Solomon Thomas, ruled that the Bill could be passed by a majority of members present and voting under Section 91(1) of the Constitution. Critics argue that the specific constitutional provision governing amendments, Section 108(2)(b), requires the support of not less than two thirds of all Members of Parliament.
The APC has since taken the dispute to the Supreme Court in two separate actions.
One case was brought by the APC together with Minority Leader Abdul Kargbo and Deputy Minority Leader Daniel Koroma, challenging the Speaker’s interpretation and seeking judicial determination of the constitutional provisions governing the amendment process.
A separate action was filed by APC MP Osman Abdal Timbo, also asking the Supreme Court to determine constitutional questions arising from the parliamentary proceedings.
The legal challenge widened on 3 September when lawyers Thomas Moore Conteh and Tamba Kellie filed another application before the Supreme Court.
The two lawyers are acting in their individual capacities in connection with the Lawyers’ Society. The Society says it has been unable to obtain corporate registration from the government.
Their application seeks the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the constitutional provisions governing the voting threshold and procedure required for Parliament to validly amend the Constitution.
The multiplicity of cases means the dispute over the Bill is no longer confined to Parliament.
It is now a constitutional contest involving Parliament, the opposition, members of the legal profession and, potentially, the Presidency.
At the centre of the dispute is Section 108(2)(b), which states that a constitutional amendment Bill cannot be passed unless it is supported on its second and third readings by the votes of not less than two thirds of Members of Parliament.
Opponents of the parliamentary process argue that the provision establishes a constitutional threshold that cannot be replaced by the ordinary voting rule applicable to parliamentary business.
Supporters of the Speaker’s interpretation maintain that Section 91(1), which provides for decisions by a majority of members present and voting, was applicable to the vote.
The Supreme Court may therefore have to determine whether the Speaker was constitutionally entitled to apply the ordinary parliamentary voting rule to a Bill whose purpose was to alter the Constitution.
The timing of the court challenges adds another layer of uncertainty to President Bio’s position.
Section 106(7) provides a 14 day period for presidential action where a Bill has been passed but the President refuses to sign it. However, the provision refers to the period following the Bill’s presentation to the President for signature.
That makes the date of formal presentation important. The date on which Parliament declared the Bill passed is not, by itself, sufficient to establish when the presidential assent clock began.
There is also a broader constitutional question over whether a Bill whose parliamentary passage is actively being challenged before the Supreme Court should be assented to before the Court has determined whether Parliament complied with the Constitution.
No public record currently establishes that the Supreme Court has issued an order restraining President Bio from assenting to the Bill.
Nor has the Court ruled on the validity of the parliamentary vote.
For now, the Constitutional Amendment Bill remains caught between Parliament’s declaration that it was passed and multiple legal challenges questioning whether it was lawfully passed in the first place.
The Supreme Court’s eventual interpretation could therefore determine not only the fate of the current amendment Bill but also how Sierra Leone’s constitutional amendment procedure is understood in future.
The immediate question remains with President Bio: whether to proceed with presidential assent while the legality of the parliamentary process is being challenged, or allow the judicial process to clarify the constitutional dispute first.
