SIERRA LEONE'S CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONTROVERSY (2026)
Judicial Review, Parliamentary Privilege and Constitutional Supremacy
By Israel Ojekeh Parper Snr. (26/10/2026)
Executive Summary
Sierra Leone presently faces one of the most consequential constitutional controversies since the adoption of the 1991 Constitution. The dispute arises from the passage by Parliament of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025/2026 and the subsequent legal challenges questioning whether the mandatory constitutional requirements for amendment were satisfied. The controversy centres upon the interaction between Sections 91, 94, 108, 122 and 127 of the Constitution and raises fundamental questions about constitutional supremacy, parliamentary privilege, judicial review and presidential authority.
At the core of the litigation lies a deceptively simple question: does the constitutional requirement that a Constitutional Amendment Bill secure the support of "not less than two-thirds of Members of Parliament" mean two-thirds of the total membership of Parliament, or merely two-thirds of those present and voting? The answer carries far-reaching implications not only for the validity of the current amendment process but also for the future architecture of constitutional governance in Sierra Leone.
The Government, through the Attorney-General and the Speaker of Parliament, has advanced a preliminary jurisdictional challenge, arguing that parliamentary proceedings are protected from judicial scrutiny by virtue of constitutional provisions safeguarding parliamentary autonomy. The challengers, including opposition parliamentarians and civil society actors, maintain that the Supreme Court possesses both the authority and the constitutional duty to determine whether the amendment procedures prescribed by the Constitution were followed.
The Supreme Court's eventual determination will likely establish a landmark precedent regarding the relationship between Parliament and the Judiciary and the scope of constitutional review in Sierra Leone's constitutional democracy.
Introduction
The Constitution is both a legal instrument and a political compact. It confers powers upon institutions of state while simultaneously limiting those powers through carefully designed procedures and safeguards. Constitutional amendment provisions occupy a unique position within this framework because they govern the very process by which constitutional rules themselves may be altered.
The present controversy concerning the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill therefore transcends ordinary legislative politics. It raises foundational questions concerning constitutional supremacy, the separation of powers, democratic legitimacy and the role of the Supreme Court as guardian of the Constitution.
Following the Bill's passage in Parliament on 10 August 2026, substantial disagreement emerged regarding whether the voting procedures employed during the amendment process complied with Section 108 of the Constitution. Opposition Members of Parliament, civil society organisations and legal practitioners challenged the validity of the process, contending that the constitutional threshold for amendment had not been satisfied. The President subsequently invoked Section 122(1) and referred constitutional questions to the Supreme Court for judicial clarification.
The litigation which followed has produced competing constitutional visions.
One vision emphasises parliamentary autonomy and institutional self-government. Under this approach, constitutional limitations on judicial interference with parliamentary proceedings protect democratic governance and preserve the separation of powers.
The alternative vision emphasises constitutional supremacy. Under this approach, Parliament, while sovereign within its legislative sphere, remains bound by the Constitution and subject to judicial review when constitutional limits are allegedly exceeded.
The tension between these competing principles is neither unique nor unexpected. Constitutional courts throughout the Commonwealth have confronted similar questions when determining whether constitutional amendment procedures have been properly observed.
The Supreme Court's eventual decision will therefore extend beyond the immediate dispute surrounding the Amendment Bill. It will shape the constitutional balance between democratic institutions and determine the extent to which constitutional amendment procedures remain enforceable through judicial oversight.
Constitutional Issues Presented
The consolidated proceedings present four principal constitutional questions:
1. The Meaning of Section 108
Whether the phrase:
"not less than two-thirds of Members of Parliament"requires support from:
- two-thirds of the total membership of Parliament; or
- two-thirds of those present and voting.
This issue lies at the substantive centre of the litigation.
2. Scope of Parliamentary Privilege
Whether Section 94(2) prevents judicial examination of matters concerning the conduct and proceedings of Parliament.
3. Supreme Court Jurisdiction
Whether Sections 124 and 127 empower the Supreme Court to inquire into alleged constitutional defects in the amendment process.
4. Effect of the Presidential Reference
Whether the President's invocation of Section 122(1) alters, suspends or supersedes the private constitutional proceedings already before the Court.
Comparati Constitutional Authorities
The controversy engages principles recognised across the Commonwealth constitutional tradition.
Among the relevant comparative authorities are:
United Kingdom
R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56
The House of Lords recognised that constitutional principles may impose limits upon institutional power notwithstanding parliamentary sovereignty in its traditional formulation.
India
Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225
The Supreme Court of India held that constitutional amendment powers are subject to constitutional limitations and remain reviewable.
South Africa
Doctors for Life International v Speaker of the National Assembly 2006 (6) SA 416 (CC)
The Constitutional Court held that courts may review whether constitutionally prescribed legislative procedures have been followed.
Kenya
Speaker of the Senate v Attorney General & Others [2013] eKLR
The Supreme Court affirmed judicial authority to determine whether constitutional legislative procedures have been respected.
Ghana
A line of Ghanaian constitutional cases has consistently recognised the Supreme Court's role in preserving constitutional supremacy and ensuring compliance with entrenched constitutional requirements.
Collectively these authorities support the broader proposition that constitutional amendment procedures are ordinarily regarded as justiciable questions rather than purely internal parliamentary matters.
Preliminary Assessment
The central constitutional tension is not merely whether Parliament obtained 97 votes or 100 votes.
Rather, the deeper issue is whether compliance with constitutional amendment procedures can be authoritatively determined by Parliament alone, or whether final interpretive authority resides in the Supreme Court.
This distinction will likely define the jurisprudential significance of the case.
Should the Court accept the Government's jurisdictional arguments in their entirety, parliamentary autonomy would be significantly reinforced. Conversely, should the Court conclude that constitutional amendment procedures remain subject to judicial review, constitutional supremacy would emerge as the dominant organising principle.
Meanwhile, this report from Sierraeye detailed how the Supreme Court Strikes Out Government’s Jurisdiction Motion, and added Attirney General’s Reference to Constitutional the Challenges
The Chief Justice Komba Kamanda ordered fresh deadlines, as constitutional dispute over the 2025/2026 Amendment Bill proceeds, but this leaves the Court’s jurisdiction unresolved.
Application by Government lawyers asking for opposition's case to be struvk out on jurisdictional grounds.
This below report from Sierraeye explains ....
Quote
"The Supreme Court of Sierra Leone has struck out a motion by the government seeking to challenge the Court’s jurisdiction over the ongoing constitutional dispute concerning the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025/2026.
In a unanimous ruling delivered on 20 October 2026, Chief Justice Komba Kamanda said the motion, filed by the defendants on 16 October, had “the tendency to forestall the progress of this matter” after the Court had already issued directions for the proceedings.
The five-member panel struck out the motion without hearing arguments on whether the Court has jurisdiction to determine the constitutional challenge. The decision therefore leaves the jurisdictional question unresolved.
The ruling also brings an Attorney-General’s Reference for Judicial Opinion, filed on 6 October, into the consolidated proceedings. The Reference raises questions of constitutional interpretation concerning the same Amendment Bill.
The decision means the constitutional challenges and the Attorney-General’s Reference will proceed within the same consolidated matter, subject to further directions from the Court.
Fresh deadlines for the parties
The Court has renewed all timelines contained in its directions of 8 October, with the periods for compliance restarting from 20 October.
The Attorney-General and Minister of Justice must also serve the Reference on the plaintiffs’ solicitors and the amicus curiae within 24 hours of the ruling, meaning by 21 October.
The Court warned that any party failing to meet the renewed deadlines would face proceedings in default.
The ruling was agreed upon by all five members of the panel, comprising Chief Justice Komba Kamanda and Justices M. F. Deen-Tarawally, A. M. Bangurah, Fatmatta Bintu Alhadi and Jamesina E. L. King.
The consolidated proceedings concern challenges to the parliamentary process surrounding the proposed constitutional amendments and related questions about the Bill’s passage and presidential assent.
Jurisdiction remains a live issue
Although the Court struck out the defendants’ motion, the ruling does not establish that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the substantive dispute.
The Court noted that the defendants retain the opportunity to raise their jurisdictional objections in their Statements of Case and argue them at the substantive hearing. Their arguments include constitutional provisions governing the Court’s jurisdiction and the question of whether proceedings should await presidential assent.
The distinction matters because the Court rejected the motion on procedural grounds rather than deciding the legal arguments advanced in support of the challenge.
The ruling also makes no determination on the merits of the jurisdictional objections. The defendants’ request for a stay of proceedings, contained in the struck-out motion, consequently falls away with the motion.
No order for costs was made.
A significant aspect of the decision is the Court’s decision to add the Attorney-General’s Reference, designated S.C. No. 12/2026, to the consolidated matter.
The Attorney-General filed the Reference under section 122(1) of the 1991 Constitution, seeking a judicial opinion on questions arising from the same constitutional amendment process.
The Court noted that the Reference had not been included in the defendants’ application for consolidation dated 11 September. The Reference itself was filed on 6 October.
By bringing the Reference into the consolidated proceedings, the Court has placed the request for a judicial opinion alongside the contested constitutional actions".
Unquote
I found this report extremely helpful because it narrows what the Chief Justice did and did not do.
On the surface, it appears that the ruling is somewhat less favourable to the plaintiffs than one might have inferred simply from hearing that "the Attorney General's application was dismissed", but more favourable than the Government would have hoped. The critical phrase in the report is:
"The Court struck out the motion on procedural grounds rather than deciding the legal arguments advanced in support of the challenge."
That sentence changes the analytical landscape considerably. It suggests something narrower. The Court appears not to have decided: jurisdiction, justiciability, parliamentary, privilege,
prematurity; nor constitutional supremacy.
Instead, the Court appears to have said:
"This particular motion should not be entertained in this procedural form at this stage of the proceedings." That to me is a very different judicial proposition. The ruling therefore appears procedural rather than jurisprudential.
What seems to have troubled the Court?
The key passage in this report is:
"the motion had the tendency to forestall the progress of this matter after the Court had already issued directions for the proceedings."
That language is revealing: the Chief Justice did not say: "the motion is without merit."
He did not say: "the Court clearly has jurisdiction." He also did not say, "the arguments on parliamentary privilege fail." Instead the Chief Justice focused on process. Translated into plain judicial language, the concern may have been:
"The Court has already established a procedural pathway and timetable. A new interlocutory application seeking to halt everything is inconsistent with those directions." This fundamentally looks like a case-management rationale.
Why a 'strike out' instead of a 'dismissal'?
This is another important clue.
A judge who rejects a legal argument often dismisses it. A judge who objects to the procedural vehicle often strikes it out.
The report repeatedly uses the phrase:
"struck out." This suggests the Court may have regarded the motion itself as procedurally inappropriate rather than legally unsound. In effect, the objection survives.
The motion does not. That distinction appears central to the ruling.
The most important paragraph in this Sierraeye report I believe, is this critical section:
"The Court noted that the defendants retain the opportunity to raise their jurisdictional objections in their Statements of Case and argue them at the substantive hearing."
That is enormous. Why? Because if this assumption is correct, it means the Government lost the battle over timing, and may not have also lost the battle over jurisdiction for now. The Court appears to have said: "Not now. Raise it properly later."
That is very different from: "No."
By this report the Court's Jurisdiction remains fully alive.
Why the consolidation with the Attorney-General's Reference matters.
This may ultimately be the most significant aspect of the ruling.
The Court did not merely strike out the motion. It brought the Attorney-General's Reference into the proceeding.
That gives some idea about the Court's preferred methodology. The Court appears to be moving towards: One comprehensive constitutional hearing rather than multiple fragments of litigation as stated earlier.
Judicially that is attractive because: the challenges pose same constitutional provisions; same amendment bill; same factual matrix and overlapping legal questions. The Court may wish to resolve all issues together.
But is the Attorney-General's Reference a tactical success for the Government?
This is a Possiblity. The plaintiffs' case is essentially: The amendment process was unconstitutional.
The Attorney-General's Reference appears to ask: What is the correct constitutional interpretation?
The Attorney-General may therefore be attempting to frame the dispute as one of constitutional interpretation rather than constitutional wrongdoing. Those are related but not identical questions.
By consolidating the Reference, the Court may have broadened the field of inquiry.
That could benefit either side depending on how the constitutional questions are framed.
What does the Chief Justice appear to be prioritising?
The report suggests three priorities.
1. Procedural discipline
The language about forestalling progress suggests a judicial desire to keep the case moving. The Court appears unwilling to permit satellite litigation that interrupts the established timetable.
2. Comprehensive determination
The consolidation of the Reference suggests:
"Let us have everything before us at once."
rather than deciding issues piecemeal.
3. Preservation of all substantive arguments.
The Court has not extinguished: jurisdiction arguments; privilege arguments; prematurity arguments; constitutional arguments: it has preserved them all. That is usually the behaviour of a court seeking maximum flexibility before determining a constitutional dispute.
The significance of the warning about defaults
The warning concerning compliance with deadlines may also reveal judicial mood.
Constitutional courts generally issue that kind of warning when they believe:they have heard
"Enough preliminary manoeuvring. We are now moving toward substantive adjudication."
It suggests the Court wants pleadings completed and the issues crystallised. No more stalling thriugh petty preliminary alpplications.
Assessing the probabilities from the above;
Issue 1: Will the Court ultimately hear the jurisdiction challenge? Very likely.
The report expressly says it remains available for argument.
Issue 2: Has the Government lost its jurisdiction argument? Not quite yet.
The Court has deliberately avoided deciding it.
Issue 3: Have the plaintiffs gained an advantage? Yes, procedurally.
They prevented an early interruption of the proceedings.
Issue 4: Has either side won the constitutional battle? No.
The Court appears to have carefully avoided deciding anything substantive.
Issue 5: What is the strongest signal from the ruling?
For me, it is this: The Supreme Court is determined to keep control of the proceedings and to hear the constitutional issues in an orderly consolidated manner rather than allowing them to be fragmented by interlocutory applications. That is a case-management signal, not yet a constitutional signal.
Conclusion
The constitutional litigation presently before the Supreme Court constitutes one of the most important constitutional disputes in Sierra Leone's contemporary democratic history.
Beyond the immediate controversy surrounding the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, the proceedings require the Court to define the constitutional boundary between Parliament and the Judiciary. The decisions ultimately rendered will shape the future operation of constitutional amendment procedures, clarify the meaning of parliamentary privilege, and determine the extent to which constitutional safeguards may be enforced through judicial review.
At its core, the case poses a fundamental constitutional question:
* When the legality of constitutional change itself is disputed, who has the final constitutional word?*
The answer provided by the Supreme Court will not merely resolve the present controversy. It will become part of the constitutional architecture governing Sierra Leone for many years to come.
This is precisely the reason why the proceedings have attracted such intense legal, political and public attention. They concern not only a particular amendment bill but the enduring principles through which constitutional democracy in Sierra Leone is maintained and protected.
Israel Ojekeh Parper Snr.
(Author/Blogger/Publisher)
