By George M.O. Williams
The Institute for Legal Research and Advocacy for Justice (ILRAJ) has raised serious constitutional concerns over the circumstances surrounding Parliament’s passage of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025, on August 10, 2026.
In a press statement issued in Freetown on Wednesday, August 12, ILRAJ questioned the interpretation of Section 108 of the 1991 Constitution used to determine the parliamentary threshold required for the passage of a constitutional amendment.
Section 108(2)(b) provides that a Bill seeking to alter the Constitution shall not be passed unless it is supported at its second and third readings by the votes of not less than two-thirds of Members of Parliament.
ILRAJ argued that the constitutional requirement is mandatory and is not subject to the ordinary voting rules applicable to parliamentary business.
The organisation expressed particular concern that the Bill was declared passed based on an interpretation of Section 108 by the Speaker of Parliament, before the same constitutional question was subsequently referred to the Supreme Court for determination.
“If the uncertainty was genuine and grave enough to warrant the intervention of the Supreme Court, then prudence, good governance and respect for the Constitution required that the clarification be obtained before the Bill was declared passed,” ILRAJ said.
The organisation warned that the sequence of events had created what it described as a “constitutional fait accompli”, with the courts being asked to examine the legality of the process only after Parliament had acted.
ILRAJ also raised concerns over reports that representatives of civil society and other members of the public observing the proceedings were removed from the Well of Parliament on security grounds.
The legal advocacy organisation called for a full and transparent explanation of the alleged security threat, including who conducted the assessment, the information relied upon, the legal authority for the removal and why the exclusion was considered necessary.
“Parliament belongs to the people. The alteration of their Constitution calls for more public scrutiny than ordinary business, not less,” the organisation stated.
ILRAJ further acknowledged the Supreme Court’s constitutional responsibility to provide authoritative interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution, saying any determination made by the Court would be binding on all persons and institutions.
However, it noted that previous politically sensitive constitutional and electoral decisions had generated public debate about constitutional interpretation, executive power and judicial independence.
The organisation said those historical debates should not predetermine the outcome of any case concerning the amendment process but argued that they made the present situation a significant test for the Judiciary.
Beyond the parliamentary process, ILRAJ reiterated its concerns about several substantive provisions of the constitutional amendment.
It said it had previously questioned the permanent entrenchment of proportional representation without what it considers to be the broad and inclusive national dialogue recommended by the Tripartite Committee.
The organisation also questioned the weight given to the limited treatment of proportional representation in the report of the Constitutional Review Committee chaired by the late Justice Edmond Cowan.
It further raised concerns about the proposed reduction of the presidential election threshold from 55 percent to 50 percent plus one, alongside the proposed geographic spread requirement.
At the same time, ILRAJ welcomed what it described as progressive provisions in the Bill, particularly the proposed constitutional guarantee of a minimum 30 percent quota for women in political nominations.
The organisation maintained that constitutional reform should not be assessed according to whether individual provisions benefit one political side or another, but according to whether the reforms strengthen democracy and are adopted through a process capable of commanding constitutional and public legitimacy.
ILRAJ called on constitutional actors to refrain from creating irreversible consequences while questions surrounding compliance with Section 108 remain unresolved.
It also called for a full explanation of the alleged security threat and the removal of citizens and civil society observers from Parliament.
Should the matter come before the Supreme Court, ILRAJ said it expected the Court to demonstrate “independence, constitutional courage and fidelity to text.”
“The Constitution belongs neither to the Government nor to the Opposition. It belongs neither to Parliament nor to the Judiciary. It belongs to the people of Sierra Leone,” the organisation said.
ILRAJ said it would continue to monitor developments and engage stakeholders, while supporting public interest litigation and advocacy where necessary in defence of constitutional supremacy and the sovereignty of the rule of law