Wednesday, 15 July 2026

Reconciliation or Accountability? The Constitutional Significance of the Discontinance of the case of the State Vs Ernest Bai Koroma, Former President of the Republic of Sierra Leone: A Veritable Executive Decision by the Arttorny General and Minister of Justice, Alpha Sesay Eaq.

When Law Meets Politics: The Koroma Case Discontinuance, Section 45 Criminal Procedure Act 2024 and Sierra Leone's Constitutional Crossroads.

[By Israel Ojekeh Parper Snr - 15th July 2026]

Abstract

This article examines the Attorney-General's discontinuance of criminal proceedings against former President Ernest Bai Koroma under Section 45 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2024. It explores the legal nature of nolle prosequi, the constitutional role of prosecutorial discretion, the distinction between discontinuance and acquittal, and the implications for accountability, reconciliation, political stability, and the rule of law.

The High Court - Freetown Sierra Leone

Introduction

Sierra Leone's political and legal landscape experienced a significant development on 14 July 2026 when the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice formally discontinued the criminal proceedings against former President Dr. Ernest Bai Koroma under Section 45 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2024. The decision brought an end to one of the most consequential prosecutions in the country's recent democratic history, a case arising from the failed coup attempt of November 2023 and involving allegations of treason and misprision of treason against a former Head of State. The Attorney-General's notice further confirmed that the proceedings were no longer before the courts, that Koroma's bail had ceased with immediate effect, and that he was free to return to Sierra Leone at a time of his choosing.

The significance of this decision extends well beyond the fate of one individual. By invoking Section 45 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2024, identified as the provision under which the Attorney-General may enter a nolle prosequi, the government has reignited important debates concerning prosecutorial discretion, accountability, reconciliation, judicial independence, and the rule of law. [Parliament of Sierra Leone]

The constitutional questions raised by this decision are likely to remain long after the court file has been closed.

Understanding Section 45

The starting point is the law itself.

The Criminal Procedure Act 2024 identifies Section 45 under the heading: "Attorney-General and Minister of Justice may enter nolle prosequi." [Parliament of Sierra Leone]

The term nolle prosequi is derived from Latin and means, in essence, "we shall no longer prosecute." It is a long-established feature of the common law inherited by many Commonwealth jurisdictions.

A nolle prosequi does not amount to a conviction. Equally, it does not amount to an acquittal. This distinction is crucial.

The discontinuance of proceedings against former President Ernest Bai Koroma means that the State has elected not to continue the prosecution. It does not mean that a court has determined his innocence, nor does it mean that a court found the allegations proved. The matter has effectively been brought to an end through executive legal action rather than judicial determination.

In constitutional terms, the Attorney-General stopped the case; the court did not decide the case.

Former President Ernest Bai Koroma

Neither Convicted Nor Acquitted

One of the most remarkable features of the Koroma matter is that it leaves behind no judicial verdict.

The public discourse surrounding criminal proceedings often focuses on only two outcomes: conviction or acquittal. However, prosecutorial discontinuance introduces a third category.

Former President Koroma now occupies a legal position in which: he has not been convicted; he has not been acquitted; but the proceedings have been terminated by the State.

For his supporters, the discontinuance will inevitably be interpreted as vindication. Many within the opposition All People's Congress (APC) are likely to argue that the collapse of the prosecution confirms longstanding concerns that the case was politically motivated.

For critics, however, the absence of a trial means that important questions regarding the allegations remain unresolved.

Both views derive from the same reality: the legal process did not run its full course.

Accountability Versus Reconciliation.

The most important debate arising from this decision concerns not criminal procedure, but constitutional philosophy.

At least three narratives are likely to emerge.

Narrative One: Reconciliation Has Triumphed

Supporters of the decision may argue that Sierra Leone has chosen stability over confrontation.

Treason proceedings against a former President carry enormous political consequences. Continuing such a prosecution could have prolonged partisan divisions and deepened tensions between the government and opposition.

Viewed through this lens, the Attorney-General's decision represents a conscious effort to promote national healing, political normalization and democratic coexistence.

Those who adopt this perspective will likely see the discontinuance as an exercise in constitutional statesmanship.

Narrative Two: Accountability Was Compromised

Others will take a different view.

They will argue that treason is among the gravest offences known to law and that allegations of such seriousness ought to be tested fully before an independent court.

From this perspective, discontinuing the proceedings leaves significant public questions unanswered.

Critics may ask:

If sufficient grounds existed to charge a former Head of State with treason, why was the case abandoned?

Conversely, if the case could not ultimately be sustained, why was it initiated?

These are legitimate questions in any democratic society committed to accountability.

Narrative Three: Constitutional Pragmatism

A third interpretation may ultimately prove the most persuasive.

Under this approach, the decision is seen neither as a surrender nor a vindication but as constitutional pragmatism. Parliament hah enacted a law which provides a lawful mechanism through section 45 (CPA 2024). The Attorney-General exercised that mechanism legally within his executive power.

The result may represent an attempt to balance competing constitutional values: accountability; stability; rule of law; national unity and public confidence. In young democracies and post-conflict societies, such balancing exercises are rarely straightforward.

The Rule of Law Question

The Koroma decision presents a fascinating challenge for rule-of-law analysis.

On one hand, the Attorney-General appears to have acted squarely within a statutory authority granted by Parliament. The decision therefore occurred within the framework of law rather than outside it. [Parliament of Sierra Leone]

On the other hand, the rule of law is about more than legality. It is also about public confidence, equality before the law, and consistency in the exercise of power.

The central constitutional question therefore becomes: Should the most politically consequential criminal prosecutions be resolved by prosecutorial discretion or by judicial determination? There is no universally accepted answer. Different Commonwealth democracies answer that question differently.

Yet it is precisely this tension that makes the Koroma matter constitutionally significant.

The Constitutional Implications.

Beyond its immediate legal and political consequences, the Koroma discontinuance raises important constitutional questions about the allocation of power within Sierra Leone's democratic system.

The first implication concerns the relationship between the Executive and the Judiciary. By invoking Section 45 to discontinue proceedings, the Attorney-General exercised an executive legal power that effectively brought an end to a case before the courts. The decision was lawful under the statutory framework identified in the Criminal Procedure Act 2024, yet it underscores the reality that not every major criminal controversy is ultimately resolved through judicial adjudication. [Parliament of Sierra Leone]

Second, the decision highlights the constitutional significance of prosecutorial discretion. In constitutional democracies, prosecutors do not merely enforce the law; they also make judgments concerning public interest, national stability, and the broader interests of justice. The Koroma matter demonstrates the immense influence that prosecutorial decisions can have on the political life of a nation.

Third, the case raises questions about accountability mechanisms. While the Attorney-General possesses legal authority to discontinue proceedings, citizens may legitimately ask whether such authority should be accompanied by stronger requirements for explanation, transparency, or parliamentary scrutiny in matters of exceptional public importance.

Finally, the decision contributes to an evolving constitutional conversation concerning the balance between law and politics. No constitutional democracy can completely separate the two. However, the legitimacy of constitutional institutions depends upon public confidence that legal powers are exercised fairly, consistently and in the national interest. The Koroma case therefore serves as an important reminder that constitutional authority derives not only from legal texts but also from public trust in those entrusted to exercise it.

Could the Case Return?

The discontinuance has understandably generated speculation about the future.

While the reported decision brings the current proceedings to an end, discontinuance is not the same thing as a judicial acquittal. Section 45 is identified as the statutory embodiment of the nolle prosequi power. [Parliament of Sierra Leone]

As a matter of traditional common-law understanding, a nolle prosequi does not ordinarily carry the same finality as an acquittal. However, the political reality may be more important than the legal theory.

Having discontinued such a high-profile prosecution, any future attempt to revive proceedings would raise inevitable questions:

What had changed? Why was the case abandoned only to be reopened? Would such action serve justice or revive political tensions? The result is that the political obstacles to reprosecution may be greater than the legal obstacles if that is ever contemplated.

What Does This Mean for the APC Party?

Politically, the immediate beneficiary of the decision is likely to be the APC.

The party can point to the fact that its former leader is no longer facing criminal proceedings and is free to return to Sierra Leone. [www.sierraleonemonitor.com]

However, the APC also faces a strategic choice. If it portrays the discontinuance as definitive proof of innocence, it risks overstating the legal consequences of the decision. Therefore, a more measured approach would be to present the development as a triumph of reconciliation and democratic dialogue rather than as a judicial exoneration. The APC Leadership may play it that way, but would the grass roots support see it that way? However, such an approach may serve both the party and the nation better in the long run.

How might this affect opposition leaders generally?

My opinion is that opposition leaders across Sierra Leone will likely draw two very different lessons.

Positive lesson

They may conclude that the political system retains room for negotiation, accommodation, and reconciliation.

If a former President facing treason charges can ultimately see proceedings discontinued through a lawful constitutional process, opposition figures may perceive that political disputes need not end in permanent legal confrontation. This could reduce fears of politically explosive prosecutions.

Negative lesson

The opposite interpretation is also possible.

Some opposition party figures may think:

"If a prosecution can be commenced and later discontinued, it means we can still be exposed to major criminal proceedings based on political circumstances."

In that sense, the case may not eliminate fears of political prosecution; it may simply demonstrate that prosecution and discontinuance are both available tools within the political system.

Long-term effect

The real effect will depend on whether this becomes an isolated event or part of a broader pattern of political de-escalation.

Lessons for Sierra Leone's Constitutional Future.

Beyond the politics of the moment, this Ernest Bai Koroma case raises larger institutional questions.

Should future Attorneys-General be required to provide fuller and clearer reasons when discontinuing politically significant prosecutions?

Should Parliament exercise greater oversight over the use of prosecutorial discretion?

Should prosecutorial guidelines be published to enhance transparency and consistency?

Should Sierra Leone consider strengthening independent prosecutorial institutions, including the role of a Director of Public Prosecutions?

These questions are not criticisms of the decision itself. They are the natural questions that arise whenever constitutional powers of great consequence are exercised.

In addition to the above, the greatest significance of the Attorney-General's action may lie not in criminal law but in political signaling.

To the APC, it signals de-escalation. To the government, it may signal reconciliation. To civil society, it raises questions about balancing accountability and stability. To future Attorneys-General, it demonstrates the enormous constitutional weight carried by the Section 45 power of nolle prosequi. [Parliament of Sierra Leone]

And perhaps most importantly, the decision shifts Sierra Leone's national conversation away from whether Ernest Bai Koroma should stand trial and toward how the country manages political disagreements among major democratic actors. That may ultimately be the lasting historical significance of this episode.

Conclusion

The discontinuance of the treason proceedings against former President Ernest Bai Koroma will undoubtedly stand as one of the most consequential legal and political developments of 2026. Yet, its enduring significance may have little to do with the criminal allegations themselves.

The case has become a national conversation about the nature of constitutional power.

It has highlighted the distinction between prosecution and adjudication, between accountability and reconciliation, and between legal authority and political legitimacy.

Whether history ultimately judges the decision as an act of reconciliation, a compromise of accountability, or an example of constitutional pragmatism, one fact is beyond dispute: The discontinuance of Ernest Bai Korona's case has transformed Section 45 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2024 from an obscure procedural provision into one of the most discussed constitutional powers in Sierra Leone today. [Parliament of Sierra Leone]

(Hon Alpha Sesay: Attorney General and Minister of Justice)

The greatest significance of the Attorney-General's action may lie not in criminal law but in political signaling.

To the APC, it signals de-escalation.

To the government, it may signal reconciliation.

To civil society, it raises questions about balancing accountability and stability.

To future Attorneys-General, it demonstrates the enormous constitutional weight carried by the Section 45 power of nolle prosequi. [Parliament of Sierra Leone]

Finally, this decision by the Attorney General and Minister of Jostice Hon Alpha Sesay to discontinue the Koroma treason and mis-prison of treason case, may ultimately be remembered not for determining guilt or innocence but for demonstrating the constitutional significance of prosecutorial discretion during moments of national political tension.

End:

Author/Publisher: Israel Ojekeh Parper Snr

14th July 2026

(Part 2 to follow)

SOME COMMENTARIES:

Click Link.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1H6ESnULQD/

Wednesday, 17 June 2026

Book Review

Governing a Poor Country: Perspectives from a Former Chief Minister of Sierra Leone

Professor David J. Francis

Published 2025 | 140 pages| Adonis & Abbey Publishers Ltd

In March 2020, SierraEye published an article that asked a blunt question under the headline “Pres. Bio Leading But Not in Charge?” The article challenged the constitutional legitimacy of the Office of the Chief Minister and argued that the position resembled that of a Prime Minister in a presidential system.

In pages 128 and 129 of the book, Francis writes that after the article appeared, he noticed a cooling in his relationship with President Bio, who began to distance himself “from our otherwise close, amicable, and positive governance working relationship.” SierraEye would be flattered if it possessed such influence. However, the controversy which followed placed Professor David J. Francis, Sierra Leone’s first Chief Minister since independence, at the centre of national debate.

Five years later, Francis responds. His answer arrives not through press statements or political speeches but through a short, dense 140-page book. Governing a Poor Country serves as a rebuttal, a memoir, a governance manual, and a political reflection.

SierraEye appears several times in the book. Francis treats the magazine as both critic and participant in the public debate surrounding his office. Readers familiar with the 2020 controversy will recognise many of the arguments which shaped national discussion during that period.

This book performs four distinct roles.

First, Francis presents a constitutional history of the Office of Chief Minister. He traces the position from its colonial origins in 1954 through its disappearance after the 1971 Republican Constitution and its re-creation by President Julius Maada Bio in 2018.

Second, the book works as a governance manual. Francis describes the systems, delivery mechanisms, and coordination frameworks he introduced during his three years in office.

Third, the book functions as a political memoir. Francis recounts his personal transition from professor at Bradford University to one of the most powerful offices in the Sierra Leone executive.

Fourth, the book stands as a primary record for future historians seeking insight into how the New Direction government operated during its first term.

Francis makes no claim of neutrality. He writes as an insider who participated in the events he describes. He openly labels his method “policy-practice critical reflection.” Readers searching for detached academic analysis will struggle. Readers seeking first-hand testimony from inside government will find rich material.

Francis begins with a troubling national paradox. Sierra Leone possesses diamonds, gold, bauxite, rutile, iron ore, lithium, rare earth minerals, and other valuable resources. The country produced famous stones such as the Star of Sierra Leone and the Peace Diamond. Yet Sierra Leone ranks near the bottom of the United Nations Human Development Index.

Francis argues that the explanation lies in leadership failure rather than resource scarcity.

The comparison with South Korea delivers the book’s sharpest point. At independence in 1961, international observers viewed Sierra Leone as more promising than South Korea. Six decades later, the contrast is dramatic. South Korea commands one of the largest economies in the world. Sierra Leone remains among the poorest nations.

Francis attributes this divergence to a system of governance built around neo-patrimonial politics. State resources merge with private accumulation. Political office becomes a route to enrichment. The famous phrase attributed to President Siaka Stevens captures this culture. “Where a cow is tethered, there it grazes.”

SierraEye readers will recognise this diagnosis. The magazine has documented similar patterns for years. Francis adds something different. He offers a view from inside government and describes the resistance faced by anyone attempting institutional reform.

When Francis entered State House in 2018, he encountered a surprising reality. The Office of the Chief Minister lacked a job description, terms of reference, or administrative framework. The position existed in name only.

Francis stated that he designed the office from the ground up.

He established six core functions for the institution. He introduced a Ministerial Performance Management system tied to the government’s eight national priorities. Cabinet retreats encouraged strategic planning. Presidential executive orders attempted to restore discipline in public service. A National Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate tracked performance across ministries and agencies.

Francis also chaired the Governance Transition Team which investigated the state inherited from the previous administration. The report described a government burdened with heavy debt and systemic corruption. According to Francis the findings triggered political hostility and personal threats against him.

Francis devotes significant attention to the constitutional dispute raised in SierraEye’s 2020 article.

His argument rests on sections of the 1991 Constitution which grant the President authority to appoint ministers beyond the Vice President. Parliament approved the appointment, and the Speaker of Parliament confirmed its legality during debate in the chamber.

Francis rejects the claim that the Chief Minister served as the Prime Minister. He presents the role as an administrative coordinator responsible for implementing presidential decisions across ministries.

The constitutional argument appears convincing on paper. Yet Francis’s own narrative raises a deeper question. If the Chief Minister depended on presidential authority to enforce decisions, what happened when such backing weakened or disappeared?

The book provides several revealing examples.

Some of the book’s strongest passages describe practical governance failures.

Francis commissioned a Standard Operating Procedures report for the Presidency with support from the Tony Blair Institute and the British High Commission.

The report proposed professional administrative structures for State House. The Office of the Secretary to the President quietly shelved the document. No implementation followed.

Another episode involved a scheduling breakdown in which the President appeared to be booked for two major events at the same time. Such incidents exposed weaknesses within the administrative machinery of the presidency.

Francis also introduced ministerial performance contracts and a warning system for underperforming ministers. He issued formal “yellow cards” to several officials and recommended four for dismissal. The President declined to act on these recommendations.

Without enforcement power, the performance system lost practical value.

Other initiatives faced similar obstacles. National Cleaning Day began as a popular civic campaign. Political rivalry and commercial interests undermined the programme. COVID-19 eventually halted the initiative.

Francis also attempted reforms in forestry regulation, plastic waste management, and agricultural policy. Entrenched economic interests blocked many proposals.

Despite these setbacks, Francis highlights several achievements.

The National Disaster Management Agency stands among the most significant. Sierra Leone lacked a permanent disaster authority despite frequent natural disasters. The NDMA Act of 2020 created such an institution.

The Bintumani III National Consultative Conference gathered political parties, civil society, and international partners in an attempt to strengthen national cohesion.

Francis also notes contributions to labour mediation, the expansion of higher education, and support for the Free Quality Education programme.

The book contains a noticeable analytical limitation. Francis documents repeated cases where reform initiatives stalled. Policies went unimplemented. Ministerial discipline failed. Administrative coordination broke down. Many of these problems relate directly to presidential authority.

Yet the book’s final chapter states that President Bio consistently provided full support for the Chief Minister’s role. This conclusion sits uneasily beside earlier evidence. Readers must draw their own interpretation.

Francis acknowledges certain personal misjudgements. He accepts that his assertive technocratic style sometimes generated political controversy. He also admits that he accepted too many responsibilities within government.

These reflections appear late in the book. A deeper examination of these issues would strengthen the analysis.

The final chapters return to the central question. Does Sierra Leone need a Chief Minister?

Francis argues yes. His reasoning does not rely on administrative convenience. He believes the country requires stronger coordination within the executive branch if reform efforts stand any chance of success.

His diagnosis remains blunt. Sierra Leone’s political elite benefits from the current system. Reform threatens entrenched interests.

Governing a Poor Country is an interesting insider account of governance in modern Sierra Leone. The book offers valuable documentation of how state institutions operate in practice. Francis writes with clarity and occasional frustration shaped by lived experience.

The work has significant flaws. Personal defensiveness appears in several sections. Some arguments protect political allies despite conflicting evidence. Certain passages resemble a defence of legacy rather than analytical inquiry.

Even with these limitations, the book holds value. Readers gain rare access to the internal dynamics of Sierra Leone’s executive government.

For SierraEye’s audience of policymakers, scholars, civil society leaders, and members of the diaspora, the book deserves to be read. It does not solve Sierra Leone’s governance problems. It reveals how difficult genuine reform becomes within a political system structured around elite survival. #sierraleonenews #highlighteveryone @followers

*Ernest Koroma apologises to APC Comrades*

Dr. Ernest Bai Koroma, former President of the Republic of Sierra Leone(2007-2018), Chairman and Leader of the main opposition All People's Congress (APC) party, Friday, 26 October apologised to the rank and file of the party for the loss of the Presidential election.
"As the Chairman and Leader of the party, the buck stops at my desk. Therefore, I should be man enough to accept all the blames and apologise for all that the APC members are going through as a result of the election loss. I am a human being and liable to mistakes. I'm sorry from the bottom of my heart," says EBK amidst thunderous applaud and standing ovation from the audience for accepting the blame and saying, "I'm sorry".
President Koroma was responding to the report of the Nine-man Committee appointed in May this year to carryout an indepth investigations as to the reasons that led to the loss of the Presidential elections in March this year.
"Yes, I have to accept the blame because I am the Leader. But you also have to remember where I took this party from. In 2002 when we contested the election and increased our Parliamentary seats from Five in 2006 to Twenty-seven, I was praised as the best Leader and Chairman. In 2007, we did not only increased our Parliamentary seats from 27 - 59, but we also won the State House, I was hailed as the best Leader ever. We repeated the same again in 2012 and I received the same accolades. Now that we lost the Presidential elections, people are calling me all sorts of names like "Dictator surrounded by sycophants" etc. If we had won, there was no need to form a Nine-man committee.
I am appealing to all of you and every true loving APC member for bygones to be bygones and for us to think of the bigger picture come 2023. I want to assure all of you that even if I am no longer the Chairman and Leader of this great APC party, I will always remain APC and will do everything in my reach to return this party to power at the earliest possible time.
I am ready to move from district to district and even to the Diaspora to tender my apologies and say I'm sorry to all APC members.
We have to come together and forgive each other.
We must extend the hand of comradeship to all those aggrieved and I'm prepared to lead that effort", EBK concluded with deafening applaud and singing of the APC Victory.
He called on all to forget about the so many Movements that are emerging which he said are all forms of distractions.
Earlier, there were speeches from Comrades Madam Diana Konomanyi who spoke on behalf of the Regional Chairmen, Eddie Turay, Franklyn Bode-Gibson and Ambassador Alimamy Petito Koroma spoke on behalf of the former Aspirants.

*Compiled by Chernor Ojuku Sesay*

TITBITS OF OUR SIERRA LEONE CONSTITUTION:2

https://www.facebook.com/israel.parpersnr/posts/10215354753451404

Constitution says to block Dual Citizens from sitting in our Parliament.

🤔Next Step is to immediately remove them from Cabinet.

{Sierra Leone’s 1991 Constitution Bill. Section 76 (1) Act No. 6 states that: "No person shall be qualified for election as a member of Parliament (a) if he is a naturalised citizen of Sierra Leone or is a citizen of a country other than Sierra Leone having become such a citizen voluntarily or is under a Declaration of Allegiance to such a country.”}

‼‼ *Sylvia Blyden Warns Cabinet May Be Contaminated*

👉Noted Sierra Leonean Constitutional Commentator Dr. Sylvia Olayinka Blyden, who has written and published numerous well-respected Opinions on the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone, has in a piece shared widely over the Internet on Sunday January 14th 2018, stated her "100% support" for the recent controversial decision of President Koroma and the ruling All Peoples Congress (APC) to refuse to give APC party symbols for Parliamentary tickets to any person who held another citizenship other than Sierra Leone. Blyden has however raised concerns over reports that persons of dual citizenship may be seated in the current Cabinet of President Koroma. She said she had no evidence of that being the case but warned that if indeed that was the case, it was a contamination of the constitutional expectation of what the Cabinet should be composed of. She described such a Cabinet as "dangerously contaminated".

Section 76.1.(a) of Sierra Leone constitution Act No 6, prohibits for anyone to become a parliamentarian if that person holds another citizenship other than Sierra Leonean.

According to Dr. Sylvia Blyden, she said she had conducted diligent research which shows this prohibition of dual nationality citizens, has been the case since the 1971 Constitution as amended in 1974 when Section 22(1)(a) of that Constitution prohibited any person of dual citizenship to be elected as Parliamentarians and consequently become Cabinet Ministers or Vice-President and also same applied for President.

This prohibition, she insisted, continued in the 1978 Constitution and again was included in the 1991 Constitution which is the Constitution still in use.

She said to show the deliberate intent to protect the Cabinet from being occupied by persons of Dual Nationality, even when the 1991 Constitution stopped Ministers from being chosen amongst Parliamentarians as used to happen before, yet still a special new sub-section was created under Section 56 of that 1991 Constitution which most categorically prohibited from ever sitting in our sacred Cabinet, anyone not qualified to be a parliamentarian (including Dual Nationality persons).

Dr. Blyden therefore revealed that it was nothing new but rather, it has been the case since the seventies that no person of dual nationality can sit in Sierra Leone Parliament or become a Cabinet Minister or Vice-President or President.

However, the provision had been ignored since 1996 when democracy was re-instituted in Sierra Leone’s ongoing second republic. The belated decision in 2018 to therefore deny symbols to such aspirants, has brought much controversy and debates. Some people questioned why it was only being used now for the first time in this Second Republic.

Many writers viciously condemned the President for refusing to give the APC party symbol to Dual Nationality Citizens when prior to now, that constitutional provision had been openly flounted.

However, Dr. Sylvia Blyden, writing on the Internet stated thus: "I completely support President Koroma on this matter. I 100% support what he did as he had no other option. Section 76.1(a) had become very topical with APC aspirants petitioning their competitors based on the dual citizenship prohibition. I honestly cannot blame the President for acting as he did in his capacity as Chairman and Leader of the APC. If he had not done so, then the matter may have been petitioned at higher levels and no responsible party leader can expose his party to such a threat," Blyden wrote.

In further comments, Dr. Blyden said that not only Parliamentarians but also anyone aspiring to be the President, the Vice-President or who is to sit in the Ministerial Cabinet, should not carry citizenship of another country or any other form of allegiance to any other country other than Sierra Leone.

She wrote that if there was any current Cabinet Minister or Deputy Minister holding a citizenship other than Sierra Leonean, that person was illegally sitting as minister. Going further, Dr. Sylvia Blyden insisted that not only were all acts taken by such a Minister null and void but she said if such a person continued to occupy a seat in Cabinet, then it may be tantamount to such a person committing Treason.

Her opinions, which are usually taken with much seriousness by ordinary citizens, have gone viral and are now being shared all over the world within the last 24 hours.

Contacted by this newspaper to throw light on the matter, Dr. Blyden confirmed that all the above views were indeed written by her. She revealed that she will be issuing out a comprehensive opinion on the matter shortly.

Here follows some of her views written on social media:

"Any Cabinet Minister who carries Dual Citizenship is an ILLEGAL MINISTER. Any Deputy Minister who carries Dual Citizenship is an ILLEGAL DEPUTY MINISTER. All orders, directives and agreements signed by such a Minister or Deputy Minister are completely NULL and VOID and of no legality and of no moment."

"To go further with my views, if it is proven that indeed such foreign-allegiance persons are seated in our sacred Cabinet (as yet, we have no such evidence), then let me go further to state that the Cabinet is dangerously contaminated."

"I am very hopeful that the Honourable Attorney General will advise His Excellency the President who is the Guardian of the Constitution and Fountain of Honour, to apply executive powers under Section 59.(2) of Sierra Leone Constitution and IMMEDIATELY remove such foreign-allegiance persons from the sacred Cabinet."

"If such persons continue to sit in Cabinet, after their foreign allegiance is uncovered, then it can even be deduced further that such Dual Citizens are committing TREASON under Section 108 of our sacred Constitution."

Meanwhile, the Government’s Principal Legal Adviser who is the Attorney General and Justice Minister, Hon. Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara, is yet to officially react to the above views as expressed by Dr. Sylvia Blyden.

*The following are relevant Sections of Sierra Leone Constitution pertinent to the views of Dr. Sylvia Blyden:*

Section 76.(1)(a): No person shall be qualified for election as a Member of Parliament if he is a naturalised citizen of Sierra Leone or is a citizen of a country other than Sierra Leone having become such a citizen voluntarily or is under a declaration of allegiance to such a country.

Section 56.(2)(a): A person shall not be appointed a Minister or Deputy Minister unless he is qualified to be elected as a Member of Parliament.

Section 41.(1)(d): No person shall be qualified for election as President unless he is qualified to be elected as a Member of Parliament.

Section 54.(2): A person shall not be qualified to be a candidate for the office of Vice-President unless he has the qualifications specified in Section 41.

Section 59.(2): A person appointed as a Member of Cabinet shall vacate his seat in the Cabinet is he ceases to be a Minister or if the President so directs.

Section 108.(8): Any suspension, alteration, or repeal of this Constitution other than on the authority of Parliament shall be deemed to be an act of Treason.

/END.

*Awareness Times Newspaper*

Monday January 15th 2018

- You may freely reshare.

Click link:

https://www.facebook.com/sylola/posts/1725371144192975

:-) She said to show the deliberate intent to protect the Cabinet from being occupied by persons of Dual Nationality, even when the 1991 Constitution stopped Ministers from being chosen amongst Parliamentarians as used to happen before, yet still a special new sub-section was created under Section 56 of that 1991 Constitution which most categorically prohibited from ever sitting in our sacred Cabinet, anyone not qualified to be a parliamentarian (including Dual Nationality persons).

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

President

Vice-President

Minister/Deputy Minister

Parliamentarian

NONE of the above category of sensitive positions should be held by anyone with divided loyalties.

For example, read the Oath of Allegiance sworn by Sierra Leonean citizens when they take up American citizenship.

I have reproduced it. Read my comments posted immediately under the Oath below.

👇👇

https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/naturalization-test/naturalization-oath-allegiance-united-states-america

*Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America*

_Oath_

"I hereby declare, on oath, *that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen*; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

After reading it, let us ask ourselves:- Can we, in good conscience, allow such a person who is under the obligations of that kind of Sworn Oath, to go on to sit in our Parliament or sit in Cabinet *and take critical decisions on behalf of Sierra Leone and Sierra Leoneans*?

NO WAY!!!!! 😡

Such a person can carry our Sierra Leone passport as a Dual Citizen. Fine.✅ No wahala.

They can apply for other non-sensitive Sierra Leone jobs inside Sierra Leone. Fine.✅ No wahala.

*But on no account*, should they be made Ministers or Parliamentarians or Vice-President or President UNLESS they first denounce and totally renounce their other citizenship and the other Oath they swore to God Almighty that they have an obligation to abide by.

Text

Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America

Oath

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Note: In certain circumstances there can be a modification or waiver of the Oath of Allegiance. Read Chapter 5 of A Guide to Naturalization for more information.

The principles embodied in the Oath are codified in Section 337(a) in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which provides that all applicants shall take an oath that incorporates the substance of the following:

Support the Constitution;
Renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen;
Support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
Bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
A. Bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; or
B. Perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; or
C. Perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law.

The language of the current Oath is found in the Code of Federal Regulations Section 337.1 and is closely based upon the statutory elements in Section 337(a) of the INA.

History

Throughout our nation's history, foreign-born men and women have come to the United States, taken the Oath of Allegiance to become naturalized citizens, and contributed greatly to their new communities and country. The Oath of Allegiance has led to American citizenship for more than 220 years.

Since the first naturalization law in 1790, applicants for naturalization have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. Five years later the Naturalization Act of 1795 required an applicant to declare an intention (commitment) to become a U.S. citizen before filing a Petition for Naturalization. In the declaration of intention the applicant would indicate his understanding that upon naturalization he would take an oath of allegiance to the United States and renounce (give up) any allegiance to a foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty. Applicants born with a hereditary title also had to renounce their title or order of nobility.

Prior to 1906, naturalization courts had little or no guidance on how to apply or administer the law. The law did not include an exact text for the oath. It stated only that an applicant:

"...shall...declare, on oath...that he will support the Constitution of the United States, and that he absolutely and entirely renounces and abjures all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty; and, particularly, by name, to the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of which he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court."

Before 1906, there were as many as 5,000 courts with naturalization jurisdiction. Each court could develop its own procedures for administering the oath. Some courts simply documented that applicants swore an oath. Other courts chose to write and print their own text for the oath, which the applicant would read at the final hearing.

In 1905 a Presidential Commission on Naturalization studied naturalization in the United States. They found that U.S. naturalization courts lacked uniformity. They recommended classifying and summarizing naturalization laws into a code (re-codification), the creation of a federal agency to oversee naturalization procedures, and standard forms for all U.S. naturalizations, including a form for the oath of allegiance.

The Basic Naturalization Act of 1906 implemented many of the Commission's recommendations, but did not mandate a separate form for the oath of allegiance. Instead, the new Declaration of Intention form and Petition for Naturalization form included some of the substance of the oath. At the final hearing the applicant still recited a spoken oath adapted from the law. In 1906 the Basic Naturalization Act also added the section of the oath requiring new citizens to defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

An official standard text for the oath of allegiance did not appear in the regulations until 1929. The regulation said that before a naturalization certificate could be issued, the applicant should take the following oath in court:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, State, or sovereignty, and particularly to __________ of who (which) I have heretofore been a subject (or citizen); that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion: So help me God. In acknowledgment whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.

This regulation introduced a signed oath with standardized language. There was still no separate, federal form for the oath. It was most likely printed on the back of the application form.

The Immigration Act of September 23, 1950, added text to the oath of allegiance about bearing arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; and performing noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law. Prior to 1946, the Supreme Court had ruled that the language in the oath about supporting and defending the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies implied a promise to bear arms. This was challenged in the court case of Girouard v. U.S. (328 U.S. 61). The Court ruled that the oath of allegiance did not imply a promise to bear arms. A refusal to bear arms was justified on the basis of religious training and beliefs. Under current law, an applicant opposed to bearing arms or performing noncombatant service because of his or her religious training and beliefs is exempt from taking the full oath of allegiance.

The section of the oath of allegiance about performing work of national importance under civilian direction was added by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and is the last major addition to the oath of allegiance as it appears today.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

The constitution is supreme! This is a BIG LESSON for ALL “to PAY ATTENTION” Note clearly when the ignoring of these laws began - “ 1996”! SLPP began the mess, APC now begin the correction! A bitter pill to swallow.

You will all recall that the late LAWYER, TERRENCE TERRY took Kabba’s appointment of EKE HOLLOWAY to court after Eke had won a Parliamentary seat and later Tejan Kabba then APPOINTED EKE HOLLOWAY ATTORNEY GENERAL, contrary to the 1991 constitution. This was Landmark constitutional case. Our laws are only good in/ for the books, but they are nearly always ignored as if the carry no merit of effect. And this does not only apply to constitutional provisions.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

https://shoutout.wix.com/so/cM3mUUXL?cid=2b36d806-2f1d-4de4-ba9d-9e531f55ff0a

Debating the political status of Sierra Leone's dual citizens is a sign of our maturing democracy

2018-01-13 | PJ Mandewa-Cole

With less than two months to go before Sierra Leone goes to the polls, the political debate presently dominating the country’s social and traditional media is whether citizens with dual nationality are or should be eligible to run for political office under the law.

It is a question that Francis Gabbidon, a notable Sierra Leonean Barrister at Law and university lecturer, brought to public notice late last year when he published an article on the subject, most likely sparked by the case of Australia’s former deputy prime minster Barnaby Joyce.

In it he wrote: “Dual citizens who take the risk of contesting for membership of parliament and win, can have their victory invalidated by a successful petition by their opponents in the courts.” This has been followed by a definitive opinion from the country’s Attorney General in recent weeks, stating the same.

Gabbidon’s legal opinion was based on a little-noticed Section of Sierra Leone’s 1991 Constitution Bill. Section 76 (1) Act No. 6 states that: "No person shall be qualified for election as a member of Parliament (a) if he is a naturalised citizen of Sierra Leone or is a citizen of a country other than Sierra Leone having become such a citizen voluntarily or is under a Declaration of Allegiance to such a country.”

The issue has become contentious because, although there were several dual citizens in the last parliament, political parties (including the ruling All People Congress and the opposition Sierra Leone People's Party) have opted to disqualify all political candidates who contravene s.76(1) from standing in the forthcoming elections.

It is a controversial decision which has divided Sierra Leoneans, in particular the country’s diaspora population. Estimated at around one million, they are vocal, influential, educated and engaged. They also contribute substantially to Sierra Leone’s GDP – with Government calculations estimating that they send home between $250 and $400 million annually, or 20-25% of GDP.

Impassioned though the debate has been, it has been conducted with noticeable transparency and inclusiveness. Furthermore, the recent action by political parties to avoid the risk of future challenge in the courts, by opting not to field dual citizens, marks an improvement in our respect for the rule of law. These are all signs of an evolving political maturity that should increase national and international confidence in the future of our democracy.

In the past Sierra Leone has suffered misrule, the advent of a one-party state, several coup d’états and the suspension of the constitution. All of these undermined the rule of law and affected the overall stability of our nation, culminating in one of Africa’s deadliest and most devastating civil wars.

This is not the first election since the assent of the 1991 Constitution. As a child in 1996, I remember joining my parents in prayer. The pinnacle of our aspirations was for the elections to be held without incident, and for our nation to return to democratic rule. Anything else seemed a luxury. However, as we have enjoyed growing peace and stability, and seen our democracy become even more entrenched, our aspirations have changed and our nation is demanding better governance, and a say in the way it is decided and delivered.

Since the ending of the war in 2001/2, we have seen three peaceful presidential and parliamentary elections observed as free and fair internationally, including a change of government; all indicators of a maturing democracy and the rule of law. The bar for #SierraLeoneDecides2018 has been set even higher. These elections have been marked by the demand for manifestos, presidential debates, increased female representation, and political parties who ensure that their candidates in all elections are eligible in line with the dictates of the constitution.

According to Sandra Day O'Connor - the first female to serve on the US’s Supreme Court: “Commitment to the rule of law provides a basic assurance that people can know what to expect whether what they do is popular or unpopular at the time.” The apparent application of the law without favour on such a high-profile issue is good for our democracy. It furthers the rule of law and strengthens governance.

Sierra Leone still has some way to go as it forges the strong institutions and good governance we need to really grow our society and our economy. In the process, debate such as this, which leads political parties across the spectrum to submit themselves to the laws of the land, can only be a good thing, entrenching the principle that no one is above the law and creating the culture of confidence our society needs to realise its potential.

PJ Mandewa-Cole trains and mobilises community leaders in Sierra Leone. He is a winner of the Queens Young Leaders Award and is the Executive Director of Lifeline Nehemiah Projects

TITBITS OF OUR SIERRA LEONE CONSTITUTION: 3

One Franklyn Davies has displayed a ragamophine approach to a serious debate the kind of unresearched and unsubstantiated giggling rat-ta-tat filled with emotional inuendos and unwarranted accusations against President Ernest Koroma and the APC under the caption: "PEOPLE WITH GLASS HOUSES MUST NOT THROW STONES" ...How Ernest Koroma...of the APC, misfired, suffocated his party's caboodle and the Diaspora will laugh last"

What I found disappointing in Davies's essay is the ramblings from one unrelated and unsubstantiated issue to another with no coherence or semblance or understanding of the factors involved. If I am to borrow from my subsidiary profession I would only award him a 2 out of 10 (20%) for effort and a re-submission!

The trouble with some of our educated folks (or those who think they are educated enough to read and write), is that they do not bother to explore beyond the initial thoughts or hear say of an issue before jumping into the band wagon; as such, they come out short of the merits deserved in what the are saying distorting the facts or mislead and mix up the relevant issues.

By courtesy of Jimmy Kandeh {Face Biok post } I give the link here below: Click!

https://www.facebook.com/jimmy.kandeh/posts/10155219589350814

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

QUOTE

People In Glass Houses Must Not Throw Stones

How Ernest Koroma, Lifetime Chairman and Leader of the All Peoples Congress (APC), misfired, suffocated his party’s caboodle and the Diaspora will laugh last.

Franklyn Davies

The whole brouhaha about dual nationality locally referred to as “two SIM cards” is a hot topic in Sierra Leone today. However, it is poised to be a blessing in disguise for the Sierra Leonean people including our brothers and sisters in the Diaspora. Such a last-minute ploy by the Ernest Bai Koroma APC government to once again play havoc with constitutional provisions continues to underscore his contempt for the populace.

President Koroma should know that all his maneuvers simply provide more evidence to the international community showcasing his deliberate attempt to undermine the democracy they invested heavily in after eleven years of civil war. It is also clear that by his actions, he is also strengthening the various cases being compiled by international NGOs and Human Rights groups (both in Sierra Leone and overseas) for him to account for his 10 years of stewardship including his looting and blatant abuse of Sierra Leoneans. The truth is, he has misfired!!

It is an open secret that the top hierarchy of the All Peoples Congress (APC) and several senior functionaries of the Government hold dual nationality. President Koroma’s family filed for him for U.K. Citizenship when he was in opposition. The APC flag-bearer candidate, Samura Kamara, holds a U.K. Passport as confirmed by many who have travelled overseas with him during the past two decades. Chernoh Maju (Chericoco) Bah, the APC running mate, would have to present evidence of naturalization by both his parents because he and they were not born in Sierra Leone. John Sisay, a British citizen ran a vigorous campaign to succeed his cousin, Ernest Bai Koroma. In fact, the Independent, a British newspaper published a glowing article about their pride that one of their own citizens, a South-Londoner, could potentially be president of Sierra Leone.

In the Independent profile, Sisay, a former member of the UK’s Labour party noted that even though he is a British citizen, “Sierra Leone, his home country, was where he wanted to serve. He has political connections there: his first cousin, Ernest Bai Koroma, is the current President and his family has long been socially and politically active. There are also financial connections, he is the former CEO of Sierra Rutile, the largest mining company for rutile, a mineral formed mainly of titanium dioxide, in the region and is the president of the Sierra Leone Chamber of Mines.”

However, Sisay’s bid to return to the UK following his failed presidential campaign to succeed his cousin was scuttered following a corruption scandal that could send him to prison. Sisay is fleeing away from justice for a 110,000 USD bribe payment he funneled via a West African logistics company. His widely known corrupt practices along with his cousin Koroma are about to catch up with him. Today, he serves as chairman of the APC 2018 campaign.

It is noteworthy that all other candidates were born in Sierra Leone except for Chernoh Maju Chericoco Bah. Further, even if they naturalized, I have no doubt that all aspirants (if they hold dual citizenships in other countries) would have renounced their second citizenship before nomination (which is what they are required to do). The "duality issue" with the NGC flag-bearer is like the "birther issue" with Obama in 2011, and in that case, he said nothing even though he was attacked, and innuendos flourished. For a government that has ministers in cabinet and Members of Parliament with dual nationality for the last 10 years, one wonders why they only thought about this now. They shamelessly parade party functionaries masquerading as respecters of the rule of law.

If Dr. Yumkella has dual citizenship, as intelligent as he is and a true patriot of Sierra Leone, I am confident he will release the facts at a time of his choosing. Like the decision to leave the United Nations, if he has something to say about dual citizenship, I am sure he will do so on his own volition. If he had a US passport, I have no doubt that he may have already renounced the US citizenship. KKY is a decent man regardless of how his critics like to spin his character. Thus, if indeed the intent of the Koroma government was to disqualify him from running for the presidency, Koroma’s ploy will miss him and will instead, catch up with him and his caboodle.

Julius Maada Bio, flag-bearer candidate for the Sierra Leone Peoples Party (SLPP) is also reported to hold a Ghanaian passport. It is also equally true that his wife, Fatima Bio, filed for him for British citizenship; a path to make his travels easy. Thus, if all allegations are true about the three main presidential contenders, the question is: which of these three candidates will speak first? Will they all adopt the Obama “birther” strategy i.e. don’t ask don’t tell, then release the facts?

For Sierra Leoneans, there is good news in the “Two SIM” or Dual citizenship saga woefully orchestrated by the ruling party. As Sierra Leoneans, this provides an opportunity for us to pursue Ernest Koroma and his cabal through litigation under the serious fraud and anti-corruption legislation in the US, UK and the EU to bring back the looted wealth from Sierra Leone. These litigations will complement those of human rights abuses during the Ebola epidemic, and many more awaiting him when he leaves office. For example, he will be held to account for looting Port Loko of its minerals through the establishment of SL Mining for the Marampa Iron Ore deposits. We also have information on how the cabal has established a company and now they and their family own the bauxite deposits in Port Loko. All these arrangements were smuggled into parliament on December 7, 2017 its last day of sitting. Does the name Bruski ring a bell?

We ask our folks in the diaspora who Koroma has used and now abandoned to wait for the last laugh. Be prepared to welcome him appropriately when he leaves office with determination to get him to account for his legacy of impoverishing our people while he is personally getting richer on inflated contracts and front companies. Yes, we in the Diaspora will have the last laugh by preparing the case files for the trials of the century. If Hisene Habri was jailed after 25 years for human rights abuses, and Minister Thiam of Guinea was jailed last year in New York for looting his country's iron ore wealth, Ernest Koroma must be rest assured the Diaspora will laugh last.

People in glass houses must not throw stones!

UNQUOTE

SOME COMMENTS:

John Moses Kamara

A good article spoiled by deviations and conjecture.

Zainu Rahman

Pls JMK educate me. What are the deviations and conjecture? I am sure missing something. Thanks

John Moses Kamara

Are we talking about corruption, alleged financial malpractice or simply about dual citizenship?

John Moses Kamara

Why is the article ending with a human rights trial of the president when it's about apparent constitutional abuse?

Zainu Rahman

I think it's on the dual nationality which has become an albatross. The constitution unarguably; shld be adhered to.

John Moses Kamara

I agree but so many words are wasted on something else. That's what I am saying not that the writer don't have valid points about the intention of the president to clearly manipulate the rules of the constitution to fit his political objectives but he laboured extensively on issues of financial accountability that merits a separate piece. And by the way I also think some of these are just allegations or suspected wrong doing and in the case of Samura Kamara no proof of second nationality. But that is how most of us write in that country, just like the politicians, complete disregards for due process of finding evidence or cite irrefutable source to make serious assertions.

Hassan Abdoiul Sesay

I agree Sith the submissions made on this issue but it is not a new clause in the Constitution. If you look at the constitution(76-1), it is very clear on this. It was not meant to disadvantage anybody. If people attack the clause and advocate for an amendment, I will clearly understand and it will be an acceptable suggestion but it was not deliberately meant for specific persons . I also believe that those who intended to contest for parliamentary seats ought to look at the eligibility criteria in the National Constitution and I know ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Jimmy Kandeh

APC cannot have it both ways and is digging its own grave. Notorious for violating our constitution they now want to hide behind the constitution to prolong their incumbency but KKY is unstoppable

Jimmy Kandeh

It's an irony that APC continues to originate constitutional changes whilst at the same time testing the limit of their provisions to put it mildly. I think it's clear that the spirit of the constitution has been tested in few instances that has left a sour taste for many. What I have always maintained and I have been consistent is constitutions are man made rules are are there to be amended or even challenged as they are are hardly perfect. We should find a way to ensure thus can happened not to suit temporary political expediency but to enhance the governance and effectiveness of our determined political dispensation.

Israel Ojekeh Parper Snr

Hassan Abdoiul Sesay: This Constitutional position is NOT NEW! The prohibitive provisions were in the 1971 Republican Constitution. That was strengthened in 1974 by Section 22 (1) (a). The prohibitions were also included in the 1978 ONE PARTY STATE constitution. When President Momoh of the APC made a change in bringing back democracy after taking over from Pa Siaka STEVENS (1985) he invited all Political Parties: That is why an eminent SLPP former Head Of the Civil Service Dr Sir Peter Tucker was chosen to Head the Constitutional Review Committee so that all Sierra Leone will benefit. The former Attorney General & Minister of Justice/ Finance Minister/Foreign Minister etc.etc Dr Abdulai Conteh (one of our legal luminaries who is still performing his brilliance in the West Indies) was a member of that Momoh’s cum 1991 constitutional Review Committee. They brought in the same Prohibitions in a much modified format to suit the type of multi-party democracy the country was now being transformed into.

This was the ‘junction point’ where Ministers can NO LONGER be chosen from among Parliamentarians. Even that prohibition was violated by SLPP/Tejan Kabba in 1996 when he appointed EKE HOLLOWAY as Attorney General after Eke had won his Parliamentary seat and assumed his place in Parliament. This brought a lot of arguments and resulted in the Late Lawyer, Terrence Terry to take Tejan Kabba and his SLPP to Court for breach of this constitutional prohibition. EKE CONTINUED TO SERVE AS Attorney General after resigning his seat. ABBAS BUNDU I recall had a field day in Parliament in 1991, (whilst he was also Secretary General of ECOWAS) arguing/speaking for a whole day trying the filler buster trick regarding the appointment of Parliamentarians as Ministers. He wanted the old (British) style to continue i.e. choosing Ministers from among Parliamentarians, whilst Dr Abdulai Conteh and many others preferred the current situation now (the American Style) i.e. President choosing non- Parliamentarians as Ministers. This approach was to emphasise “THE SEPARATION OF POWERS” Legislators to legislate (hence Parliament- the Legislative Assembly, and the Executive to Execute Policies - hence the Preside and his Cabinet). All for the good of the nation.

These prohibitions of 1991, Section 76(1) (a) Of Act No. 6. was reinforced by Section 56 (2) (a), which prohibits anyone from sitting in Cabinet if that person is disqualified to be a Member of Parliament including those with Dual Nationality.

I can go on and on; but it may be wise for our ‘educated’ contributors to read, understand,observe and learn what the constitutional implications are before they jump in the band wagon and write with confused ideas (mix-matching unrelated issues as Franklyn Davies has done above). But I will also direct attention to the following sections of the 1991 constitution:

Section 41 (1) (d)

Section 54 (2) {which has a link with Section 41}

Section 52 (2) and

Section 108 (8)

Just Google SIerra Leone Constitution - you do not have to go and buy books except if you will want one like that written by Dr Abdulai Conteh some time ago where he explained many concepts and implications.

THIS IS THE EFFECT OF THE SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION - (not all will by satisfied with all its provisions! The fact that certain sections were ignored by ALL, does not mean that a rectification or implementation of the law must not take place.)

Mistakes in the past is effectively being corrected now: IT IS BETTER TO BE LATE, THAN NEVER! {Though I prefer what the Late Ach-Bishop M N C O SCOTT wrote to me in his last correspondence before he departed this wicked world : “BETTER NEVER

LATE”

Miranda Aishe Davies

constitutions can be amended with due process. i dont think there is any question with that. the questioning is with the intent behind their proposed changes. Leadership is clearly flawed when it comes ti their decision making and process. we had a process where recommendations from a review process were thrown out the window to install their own formula for remaining in power to name an example. John MosesKamara i like to be fair because there is nothing to gain from escalating grievance. can they not see that it only takes us back...can you explain this to them...

Israel Ojekeh Parper Snr

John Moses Kamara: The trouble our country is that our laws are always ignored even by the most educated people we have. We do have robust laws in Sierra Leone covering ALL sectors and issues; but who cares? What is happening now is a case in point. Constitutions are always subject to amendments because things change even naturally and No-one can prevent social changes!

John Moses Kamara

Entirely agree with you Miranda, everything has to go through the due process and for constitutional changes like ours the bar is higher than statutes. This is to safeguard the rule of law and fundamental issues of governance. But it can be sticky at times and the inflexibility may not always be convenient for common sense or human rights like the penalty for dual citizenship. The leadership cannot get it right always and hence the courts. The Supreme Court is there for all no matter whether we agree with their rulings or not. I want to be fair too as this is not about politics but development

Israel Ojekeh Parper Snr

John Moses Kamara: you will have to argue the interpretation aspects with the learned Supreme Court Judges who arrived at their decision after a considerable amount of deliberations. That was their and the have settled that matter once and for all. Even the ECOWAS decision did not trample their interpretation and deception. The ECOEAS Court's decision was on a different footing- 'Human Rights' not Constitutional interpretation!

Farook Abdul-Karim Sesay

Whoever wrote this piece, should be shred in pieces! We want to hear ascertained facts - not one riddled in conjectures! One needs to write authoritatively from a well researched viewpoint and not be prosaically rambling about opinions laced with irascible conjectures! It really bothers me when intellectuals employ disingenuous logic to piece together a far fetched conspiracy theory! What has PresidentvKoroma and the APC machinery had to do with the 1991 constitution? Did they write it? Have they tinkered with it in any form or fashion? One needs to glean Section 76 (1) to really appreciate its import and relevance to dual nationality. There are two strands here: obtaining dual citizenry and the conditions attached to having one! Let me spell it out here in black and white: "

Section 76 (1) "No person shall be qualified for elections as a member of parliament -(a) if he is a naturalised citizen of Sierra Leone or he is a citizen of another other than Sierra Leone having become such a citizen voluntarily or is under declaration of allegiance to such country."

The operative expressed terms here are: ... VOLUNTARILY OR IS UNDER A DECLARATION OF ALLEGIANCE TO SUCH A COUNTRY!

Allegiance is what is paramount here. Voluntary is secondary and pales in comparison to the term "allegiance"! How can someone give his/her allegiance to two countries and readily and unequivocally serve both! No one has ever used duality of nationality in the West and ruled! In law school, I was privileged to do a module called "Morality and the Law". Is Being FAIR and being RIGHT flips sides of the same law coin? What takes precedence? Fairness or rightfulness? Expediency or principle? These questions had baffled us until we sunk our teeth in the whole juicy but tantalising literature in this course! So when self entitled critics are flippantly accusing President Koroma and APC as showing a debased sleight of hand, even as a diaspora, I take umbrage to such disingenuous accusations! The law has been dormant. But that did not make it redundant or irrelevant. Just an oversight antic on all regimes from the inception of the 1991 constitution (for whatever reason best known to them! ). And then entered the spitting dragon in the guise of legal Luminary, Erstwhile Ombudsman Francis Gabbidon - opening up a can of worms. And that was ages ago, before parliament closed shop! No one raised an eye brow - hopefully thinking that it will be "business as usual " . But they got it all wrong! And the loose canon, who is a wrecking ball, another legal icon, Charles Francis Margai, rushed in - even where angels fear to tread! And started throwing tantrums and threatening legal suits over petitions if anyone is found wanton in toting dual nationality!

Why is the blame now being heaped at the threshold of President Koroma and the APC? Why can't critics, for once take away the wonky blinkers they have on - and be brave enough to own up and say - "everyone messed up. Even if unwittingly or inadvertently! " I see this as a pyrrhic victory for even the apc! No one came out of this unscathed! Let us get off our blame horses and find solutions when parliament reconvene ! We need to assiduously find out solutions to a problem that we overlooked during the 2006 amendment act and when we had the golden opportunity during the CRC (Constitutional Review Committtee) engagements! We embarrassingly did nothing to bringing it to the fore. Now this furore is biting us hard and bad! And we are all using our moral, partisan, insincere and angry ( however genuine) vuvuzelas like we are overdosed on political viagra and cussing one man and one party! Chasing waterfalls or paper kites won't shift the landscape or help here. Let us put on our honesty and non partisan suits and put wind in the flailing sails of our midguided anger and energy to hange or influence amendmentments! But if we are not game, then Like the old chap John Major would have said: "shut up! Or put up!"

Hamiru Harry Massaquoi

Having deliberately ignored the law for decades. What is or should be the repercussion for President Koroma and all those dual citizens who have either served as Ministers or MP's in the last ten years?

Farook Abdul-Karim Sesay

Nice query Hamiru Harry Massaquoi! Unfortunately, though we do not have a safety net of "statutory limitation" - the law is mute and moot on most issues that should have a retroactive lash back or ramification in terms of criminal enterprise! I honestly do not have an answer. But I can put out a guess: their inadvertent "crime" will go unpunished and so they will go scot free or the legally and politically embarrassing situation will be hastily and conveniently swept under the thick, heavy rugs of power secrecy and silence! However, what is certain is that a new narrative will pan out. Jitters will set in. Until the laws are amended to suit most people's comfort, they will not be recruited! But for now they will be home and dry with getting away with a system that no one thought to fix because they perceived it ain't broke! Do not hold your breath for any immediacy in positive affirmative action

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

This link below takes you to another set of interesting debate

https://www.facebook.com/pierre.dumbuya/posts/10213062749620776

Surprised that Julius Spencer of the NGC can go on national TV in Sierra Leone to talk trash like Alpha Saidu Bangura. The 2006 Immigration Act in no way impinged on the provisions of Section 76 of the Constitution. As a party advocating change, one would expect the NGC to embrace compliance with the Constitution rather than see the present situation as political. One therefore questions the judgment of those leading the NGC!

Harold Domingo

Is Julius Spencer the only person giving their opinions on the matter? Why don’t you shed light on the issue as a legal minded person?

Is section 76(1) in the 1991 Constitution an “entrenched clause” and therefore cannot be ammended? When parliament ammended the act in 2006, did the ammendment supersede the article in 1991? For constitutional and legal “ignoramuses” like some of us are, we would like to see the debate elevated and get different viewpoints on the issue. This is what we used to do at L&DS every Friday at the Prince of Wales School. Remember?

Now let’s turn to your darling party that has violated your sacred 1991 Constitution. What should be done to the executive, judiciary and legislative branches of Government that turned a blind eye on section 76(1). Why do they “cherry pick” on the law of the land? Do the courts rule on merits of cases in front of them? Why is it only now that Francis Gabidon is speaking on the matter? Was he in slumber all these years when the constitution was being violated by the “Supreme Leader” of Sierra Leone? Just some few questions to clarify during this important debate.

Dr. Julius Spencer is a fine gentleman and is doing what a spokesman of a political campaign should do. Shame on the “Justice System” in Sierra Leone. If not Sam Sumana ousting, it is dual citizenship......all in the name of putting the bull’s eye on a private citizen, who under the law of the land has met and fulfilled the requirements to run for the highest office of the land. SMH

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

The Penalty: {Courtesy: SO Blyden}

https://www.facebook.com/sylola/posts/1726916940705062