Sierra Leone’s Lawyers’ Society has called on the government to withdraw statutory instruments establishing new districts, cities and local councils, arguing that required consultation and parliamentary procedures may not have been properly followed.
The Society said Government Notices Nos. 246 to 277, contained in an extraordinary edition of the Sierra Leone Gazette dated 16 September 2026, raise legal and governance concerns.
Among the measures are Statutory Instruments Nos. 13, 15 and 19, establishing Freetown City Council, Freetown West City Council and Lungi City Council respectively.
The government has defended the broader restructuring programme, saying the creation and reorganisation of districts and local councils followed a review of the country’s administrative needs.
In June 2025, Local Government and Community Affairs Minister Tamba Lamina said his ministry, together with the Ministry of Finance and the Electoral Commission, had reviewed the proposals and advised President Julius Maada Bio and Cabinet.
Mr Lamina said the government’s assessment was not based solely on population, but also took into account other factors considered relevant to determining administrative boundaries. He also said the government had followed the law governing the President’s powers in relation to the creation of districts and cities.
The restructuring includes the creation of Bandajuma and Kpanguima districts, the division of Freetown into two local councils and the establishment of Lungi as a city. The measures have now been formally gazetted.
But the Lawyers’ Society says the exercise raises questions about whether the government fulfilled the procedural requirements governing statutory instruments.
It cited Section 2(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 2022, which gives the President power to declare districts, towns and cities by statutory instrument.
The Society argues that this power is subject to constitutional and statutory requirements, including provisions it says require statutory instruments to be laid before Parliament for 21 days before coming into force.
It also cited Parliamentary Standing Order 18(2), which requires a memorandum explaining the consultation process with relevant stakeholders when such an instrument is presented for laying.
The Society disputes the government’s characterisation of a meeting held on 18 September 2025 as meaningful consultation, describing it instead as a presentation of government proposals.
It said this contrasted with a Freetown City Council town hall held on 26 June 2025, attended by more than 600 residents and stakeholders, including market women, commercial bike riders, young people, civil society organisations and lawyers.
According to the Society, participants overwhelmingly rejected the proposed division of Freetown. It also referred to a Freetown City Council resolution and opposition from the Krio Descendant Yunion.
Freetown City Council has previously expressed concerns about the proposed division, including the potential impact on urban management and the delivery of services. The council’s published position says Freetown is Sierra Leone’s capital, principal port and commercial hub and warns that dividing responsibilities could further fragment urban management.
The Lawyers’ Society has also questioned whether two separate councils would be financially and institutionally viable, arguing that the changes could duplicate administrative structures and increase overheads while existing councils face funding constraints.
It has called for an independent socio-economic viability study before the restructuring proceeds.
The Society is urging the government to withdraw Statutory Instruments Nos. 13, 15 and 19 and is calling on Parliament to reject them if they are presented for consideration.
The dispute therefore raises two separate questions: whether the government has the legal authority to create new administrative areas, and whether the procedures used to exercise that authority complied with the relevant consultation and parliamentary requirements.
The government has maintained that the restructuring was undertaken through the relevant government institutions and within the law, while the Lawyers’ Society is challenging the adequacy of the process.
The issue is now likely to place greater scrutiny on the statutory instruments, the consultation process and Parliament’s role in determining whether the new administrative arrangements should proceed.
