SIERRA LEONE 1991 - 2026 CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS: PART 2: HISTORICAL LINEAGE

The Thirty‑Year Constitutional Relay: How Generations of Failed Reviews Shaped the 2026 Reforms.

 By Israel Ojekeh Parper Snr. 31/07/2026

 

The Thirty‑Year Constitutional Relay: How Generations of Failed Reviews Shaped the 2026 Reforms

Tracing the lineage from Strasser’s 1993 Advisory Council to the Tucker and Cowan Commissions — and how Alpha Sesay “cloned” three decades of consensus.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Sierra Leone’s 2026 Constitutional Amendment Bill is the latest chapter in a thirty‑year relay of reform attempts, each one producing ideas but failing procedurally. From the 1993–1995 Strasser Advisory Council, through the 2008 Tucker CRC, the 2017 Cowan CRC, and the 2023 Tripartite Committee, successive governments generated a remarkably stable body of consensus on electoral calendars, executive removal rules, depoliticization of the armed forces, and proportional representation.

Attorney General Alpha Sesay’s 2026 draft did not invent new doctrine; it consolidated, cloned, and operationalized the accumulated consensus of three decades. His procedural innovation — abandoning the “total overhaul” model in favour of targeted parliamentary amendments — finally allowed Sierra Leone to 

implement reforms that had been intellectually settled since the 1990s but politically blocked by referendum requirements, transitions of power, and institutional inertia.

Part II traces this lineage, showing how the 2026 reforms are not a rupture but the first successful harvest of Sierra Leone’s long‑standing constitutional aspirations.

INTRODUCTION: THE LONG ROAD TO REFORM!  Why Sierra Leone Keeps Returning to the Same Constitutional Questions.

Constitutional reform in Sierra Leone has never been a single event; it is a recurring national conversation that re‑emerges every decade with strikingly similar conclusions. The country’s constitutional history reads less like a sequence of isolated commissions and more like a continuous intellectual project, repeatedly interrupted by political transitions, crises, and shifting priorities.

From the NPRC’s 1993 Advisory Council to the Cowan CRC’s nationwide consultations, Sierra Leone has produced thousands of pages of recommendations, hundreds of stakeholder submissions, and multiple draft constitutions — yet until 2026, almost none of these proposals crossed the threshold into law.

This section examines the historical relay that shaped the 2026 reforms:

• how the 1995 Working Draft introduced modern governance concepts;

• how the Tucker CRC refined them with post‑war institutional logic;

• how the Cowan CRC validated them through mass public consultation;

• and how the Tripartite Committee gave them bipartisan legitimacy.

By tracing this lineage, we see that the 2026 Amendment Bill is not a sudden innovation but the culmination of a thirty‑year constitutional conversation — one that finally found a procedural pathway to implementation.

Sierra Leone’s House of Parliament 

THE CHAIN OF HISTORICAL REVIEW EFFORTS (1993–2023)

Sierra Leone’s modern constitutional journey passes through four major milestones before the currently debated efforts:

1. Strasser/ NPRC Advisory Council (1993–1995)

Following the 1992 coup, Capt. Valentine Strasser appointed Dr. Ahmad Tejan Kabbah to chair a National Advisory Council which produced the 1995 Draft Working Contitution. 

This 1995 Working Draft constitution -was never enacted, but it pioneered/introduced several modern debates such as:

• splitting the Attorney General from the Minister of Justice,

• demilitarisation politics and restricting military involvement in governance 

• early proposals for fixed election dates,

• early proportional representation concepts e.g. District-based proportional representation (PR) experiments.

Although abandoned after the 1996 democratic elections, it created the first modern reform blueprint.

2. The Dr Peter Tucker Constitutional Review Commission (2007–2008)

Appointed by President Tejan Kabba after the TRC’s recommendations, Dr. Peter Tucker led a technical commission that:

• identified structural gaps in the 1991 Constitution text, 

• proposed independent agency models,

• recommended fixed electoral calendars,

• highlighted entrenched clauses requiring referendum thresholds.

The report was submitted to the incoming Government in 2008 but the report was shelved due to political transition.

However, its technical precision later became the backbone of Justice Edmond Cowan’s (2013 - 2017) and the current Attorney General Alpha’s 2026 constitutional reviews.

3. Cowan Constitutional Review Committee (2013–2017)

President Ernest Bai Koroma launched an eighty (80) member plenary led by Justice Edmond Cowan. This was the largest civic consultation conducted in Sierra Leone’s history: it conducted over 10,000 public consultations nationwide, held about 133 stakeholder engagement;  received back over 70,000 consultation forms, and 150 position papers were submitted. 

The process culminated in a 2017 White Paper in which the government after scrutiny, rejected about 75% of recommendations, stalling the overhaul prior to the 2018 elections. 

However, the Cowan CRC produced a very comprehensive consensus archive which has been found useful by the current AG in his drive towards constitutional reform.

4. Tripartite Committee (2023)

Following the disputed 2023 General elections, the Government and the All Peoples Congress (APC) party 

formed  a Tripartite Committee that  produced 18 consensus recommendations, including:

district‑level PR mechanics, electoral calendar reforms, strengthened nomination processes for Electoral Commission and gender‑inclusive provisions.

This committee was supposed to provided the political legitimacy earlier reviews lacked, but there has been some  arguments and disagreements at its implementation.

1991 vs 1993–1995: TWO PATHS TO MULTIPARTYISM.

A comparison of the 1990 - 1991 President J S Momoh transition and the 1993 / 1995 Captain Valentine Strasser/Tejan Kabba transition reveal two distinct constitutional paradigms:

Dimension. 1990-1991   1993-1995

                      Momoh.       Strasser

                     Transition    Transition

            (Peter Tucker)  (Tejan Kabba)

Originating  Dejure       Defacto

Authority    Civilian      MilitaryJunta

                    Govt.

                   One-party    Junta-NPRC

                   state         

Primary                        

Mechanism. Top-down     Post coup                  

                  repeal of      exit roadmap 

                 1978                    &

                one-party       Advisory

                 state                 Council 

                                           drafting

Public                          

Consent  Enacted via     By passed;

                August 1991    1996

                Public               elections 

               Referendum     held under    

                                         restored        

                                         1991 

                                        Constitution 

                                         text.

Core Focus. 

               Restoring      Demilitarising                      

               multiparty        politics;

                Political          establishing

               competition    independent 

              under civilian   agency

                rule.                 models

These divergent origins explain why later commissions struggled: The 1991 Constitution headed by Dr Peter Tucker during President Momoh’s era, was born from a civilian referendum, while the 1995 draft by the Advisory Council headed by Tejan Kabba under NPRC,was born from a military exit strategy. Their DNA never aligned.

HOW ALPHA SESAY “CLONED” 30 YEARS OF CONSENSUS.

Attorney General Alpha Sesay rather than drafting new constitutional change concepts, adopted a strategic legislative harvesting process which he described in Parliament as “nothing invented in my office.” He as Attorney General has presented a government proposal to Parliament after systematically extracted, consolidated and re packaged thirty (30) tress of accumulated public and expert consensus. Every major provision in the 2026 Bill is a direct extraction from earlier national processes: a CUT AND PASTE EXERCISE!

TH CLONED LEGISLATIVE LINEAGE INCLUDES:

• Executive removal rules — lifted from Cowan (2017) which analysed the 2015 Sam‑Sumana crisis and proposed a clearer (VP) removal procedures; 

• Fixed election schedules — first drafted in the 1995 Working Constitution Draft   refined by Peter Tucker in 2008 and re-endorsed by Cowan in 2017.

• Depoliticisation of armed services — traces its exact phrasing from TRC Report (2004) and the Peter Tucker CRC  in 2008. 

• District PR mechanics —derived from the 1995 Advisory Council of Tejan Kabba and the 2023 Tripartite Committee recommendations. As true to his words the A G (Alpha Sesay) “Nothing was invented in [his] office “!

THE MISSING PIECE AND PROCEDURAL BREAKTHROUGH AFTER 30 YEARS FAILURE

The most important insight is procedural, not substantive. But why earlier reform efforts failed?

Earlier efforts failed because  previous approaches were attempts in  total constitutional overhaul, requiring referendum thresholds and political alignment that never materialised. For instance: 1995: No referendum; military exit overshadowed intended reforms. In 2008: Political transition from Tejan Kabba to Ernest Bai Koroma but the Tucker laid frozen and in 2017, government rejected 75% of Cowan’s recommendations. The 2018 - 2023 attempt met with electoral disputes which consumed the political bandwidth and also, Entrenched clauses required referendum thresholds the government avoided for economic and other reasons.

The current Attorney General Alpha Sesay’s innovation: A procedural hack: instead of attempting a total overhaul (which requires a referendum) Sesay:

• extracted non‑entrenched consensus provisions,

• package them into targeted parliamentary amendments,

• avoided referendum deadlock, and 

• implemented reforms early enough for 2028 electoral timelines. This point he repeated a number of of times in his presentation in Parliament. 

This procedural shift is considered a strategic breakthrough of the 2026 reforms.

CONCLUSION

The Philosophy of Continuity: Why should the 2026 Reformers Succeed Where Other Past Efforts Failed?

Constitutional reform is often imagined as rupture — a decisive break from the past. Sierra Leone’s experience suggests the opposite: durable reform emerges not from rapture, but from continuity.

If the 2026 Amendment Bill succeeds (partisanship aside) it will be because it does not attempt to reinvent the constitutional order. Instead, A.G. Alpha Sesay appears to have capitalised and treated the past three decades of review efforts as a repository of assumed national wisdom, and brinksmanship, accumulated through military transitions, democratic restorations, peace building processes, and electoral negotiations.

The deeper philosophical lesson is that constitutional change in Sierra Leone has always been conceptually easy but procedurally hard. The country has long agreed on the core reforms. What it lacked is a mechanism capable of translating consensus into law without triggering political deadlock or referendum paralysis; and it appears that A. G. Alpha Sesay’s approach of incremental amendments rather than total overhaul of the constitution, cunningly embodies such pragmatic philosophy that will encourage legislators/reformers to follow the path of least resistance, and not the path of greatest ambition. This rather is his recognition that constitutions evolve through accumulation, not revolution; through harvesting, not invention. 

The questions now are : Would the 2026 reforms mark a turning point in Sierra Leone’s constitutional journey and do these reforms if passed into law demonstrate that Sierra Leone’s constitutional future will be built not by discarding the past, but by finally implementing the past’s most enduring ideas for the benefit of her citizens?

If the answers to these questions are in the affirmative, then the 2026 reforms will be a turning point as they will demonstrate that Sierra Leone’s constitutional future will no longer be built by discarding the past, but by implementing the past’s most enduring ideas; and that country’s constitutional journey is not a story of repeated failures, but of long-term coherence - a relay in which each generation carries forward the same baton until one finally crosses the finish line.

Let’s look to the future as Parliament continues debating the 2026 Constitutional Reform Bill.

         

 Author: Israel Ojekeh Parper Snr

Blogger/Publisher - Governance       Observer 

————————————-

LATEST ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 

 https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Eisyz1u8w/?

🏛️🇸🇱 SIERRA LEONE'S 1991 CONSTITUTION AMENDED: PARLIAMENT APPROVES MAJOR ELECTORAL REFORMS

On 28th July 2026, Sierra Leone's Parliament passed significant amendments to the 1991 Constitution, introducing some of the most far-reaching electoral and governance reforms in the country's democratic history. These changes are expected to shape how future elections are conducted and how key public offices are filled.

Here are some of the major constitutional amendments approved by Parliament:

🗳️ 1. Presidential Election Threshold

Previously, a presidential candidate was required to secure 55% of the valid votes cast to be declared the winner. Under the new amendment, the threshold has been changed to 50% plus one vote (50% + 1).

📌 Example: If 100 valid votes are cast, a candidate must receive at least 51 votes to win outright.

🗳️ 2. Electoral System Changed to Proportional Representation (PR)

Parliament has approved the Proportional Representation (PR) electoral system, replacing the previous constituency-based system for the elections covered by the amendment. This marks a significant shift in Sierra Leone's electoral framework.

⚖️ 3. Removal of the President or Vice-President

Previously, the removal of a Vice-President could occur following dismissal from their political party and subsequent action by the President. The amended law now provides that the President or Vice-President can only be removed through a two-thirds majority vote in Parliament, strengthening parliamentary oversight.

🗳️ 4. Appointment of the Chief Electoral Commissioner

Under the previous system, the President appointed the Chief Electoral Commissioner after consultations with political parties and stakeholders. The new amendment establishes a Search and Nomination Committee, appointed by the President, to identify and recommend qualified candidates for the position.

📅 5. Fixed Date for General Elections

Instead of the President setting the election date, Sierra Leone will now have a fixed election date.

🗓️ General elections will be held on the second Saturday of November in every election year.

👩🏽‍⚖️ 6. Women's Representation

To promote gender inclusion, every registered political party must now ensure at least 30% representation of women among its parliamentary candidates.

🏛️ 7. Independent Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidates

For the first time, independent (non-partisan) candidates who meet the legal requirements may contest for the offices of President and Vice-President.

📋 8. Resignation of Public Servants

Previously, public officers seeking elective office had to resign 12 months before an election. The amended Constitution reduces this period to 6 months before becoming eligible to contest.

⚖️ 9. Election Petition Timeline

The deadline for filing an election petition has been shortened from 7 days after the declaration of results to 3 days, encouraging a faster resolution of electoral disputes.

🌍 10. Dual Citizenship and Public Office

The Constitution has also revised the rules regarding dual citizens. Rather than imposing a blanket restriction, the amendment introduces specific conditions under which dual citizens may qualify to contest for public office.

🇸🇱 These constitutional amendments represent a landmark moment in Sierra Leone's democratic evolution and are expected to influence future elections, governance, and political participation across the country.

💬 What are your thoughts on these constitutional reforms?

 🤔 Which amendment do you believe will have the greatest impact on Sierra Leone's democracy? 

📢 Share your views respectfully in the comments, and don't forget to Like 👍, Comment 💬, and Share 🔄 to keep the conversation going.

SIERRA LEONE 1991–2026 CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS

SIERRA LEONE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & ELECTORAL ARCHITECTURE  FOCUS: 1991–2026 REFORMS.

{By Israel Ojekeh Parper Snr. 29-07-2026}

Executive Summary

This report examines Sierra Leone’s proposed 2026 constitutional reforms through three lenses: the bill’s legislative content, its historical roots in earlier review processes, and its implications for proportional representation. The central question is whether the bill offers a pragmatic route to near-term electoral and administrative reforms, or offers a long-term democratic value depending on how transparently entrenched constitutional questions—especially executive power, judicial independence, rights protections, and election management—are addressed in a future referendum process.

An in-depth analysis of the proposed constitutional overhaul, political party posturing, and the controversial procedural split between entrenched and non-entrenched 

Sierra Leone stands at a pivotal constitutional crossroads as Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Alpha Sesay, pilots the 2026 Constitutional Amendment Bill through Parliament. Originating from decades of post-conflict governance consultations—including the 1999 Lomé Peace Accord, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), the 2017 Cowan Constitutional Review Committee (CRC) Report, and the recent post-2023 election Cross-Party Tripartite Committee—this bill represents the most ambitious attempt to modernize Sierra Leone's electoral and administrative framework since the restoration of multi-party democracy.

Anatomy of the 2026 Amendment Bill

The proposed legislation concentrates on recalibrating state institutions, codifying electoral rules, and mitigating institutional friction during transition cycles. The core provisions include:

• Fixed General Election Schedule: Establishes a permanent voting date on the second Saturday of November every fifth year, stripping the executive of the power to manipulate election timing for tactical advantage.

• Proportional Representation (PR) Codification: Institutionalizes the District Block PR system into the constitution to eliminate frequent, costly, and politically volatile localized by-elections.

• Presidential Threshold Adjustment: Adjusts the winning threshold for presidential elections from 55% to 50% + 1 vote, while introducing a geographic requirement requiring candidates to secure at least 20% of votes in two-thirds of voting districts to ensure a genuine nationwide mandate.

• Depoliticisation of Security Forces: Explicitly prohibits the Sierra Leone Police (SLP) and the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF) from participating in partisan activities or promoting party interests.

• PPRC Party Deregistration Powers: Empowers the Political Parties Regulation Commission (PPRC) to deregister any political party that fails to secure a seat at either local or national levels across two consecutive general elections.

• Executive Membership Protection: Clarifies that a sitting President or Vice President cannot be stripped of executive office purely on the grounds of losing party membership or being expelled by party leadership - resolving a major constitutional ambiguity exposed during the 2015 Sam-Sumana crisis.

The Parliamentary Battlefield: SLPP vs. APC

The debate inside the Chamber reflects deep-seated political divisions. The ruling Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) frames the bill as an essential, non-partisan modernisation package that lowers the administrative cost of democracy and enforces cross-party consensus reached during the Tripartite Committee deliberations. The government explicitly rejects the opposition fears of an executive power grab, emphasising that no third-term extensions are contemplated.

Conversely, the opposition All Peoples Congress (APC) maintains a stance of high scrutiny. The APC insists that any constitutional amendment must strictly reflect all 80 recommendations of the Tripartite Committee without selective omissions. Furthermore, opposition MPs express alarm over the PPRC's proposed deregistration powers, warning that regulatory oversight could be weaponised against opposition coalitions or emerging third parties. The APC also demands that the proposed Independent Search and Nomination Committee for Electoral Commissioners be insulated from executive influence to guarantee total commission neutrality.

CIVIL SOCIETY & MEDIA REACTION

Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and the Sierra Leone Association of Journalists (SLAJ) have welcomed the fixed election dates and security neutrality clauses. SLAJ, however, expressed concern that standalone press freedom protections were omitted from the non-entrenched text. On gender equality, rights groups have strongly backed the bill's mandatory 30% quota for women in parliament and local councils sees this as a landmark victory for inclusive governance.

The Split: Entrenched vs. Non-Entrenched Clauses

A central point of debate is the AG Alpha Sesay’s strategic decision to split the constitutional review into two distinct procedural tracks: non-entrenched clauses (which require a two-thirds parliamentary vote under Section 108) and entrenched clauses (which require a national referendum).

Dangers of Postponing Entrenched Clauses:

While passing non-entrenched administrative fixes appears to provide immediate electoral clarity, indefinitely shelving entrenched clauses would likely create structural risks. Leaving executive appointing powers, judicial independence mechanics, and fundamental human rights unreviewed while tightening operational electoral rules, risks creating an asymmetric system where the executive retains imperial powers while the  while operational playing field is strictly constrained.

Two notable points:

1. Reaffirmation of Democratic Limits: 

The Minister of Information Chernor Bah and AG Alpha Sesay publicly reaffirmed that President Julius Maada Bio has explicitly ruled out any "third-term" presidential agenda, reassuring the public that the 2026 bill focuses strictly on non-entrenched electoral mechanics and national cohesion.

2. The "Search and Nomination Committee" Test Case: Civil society organizations (such as ILRAJ) have been actively scrutinizing executive appointments to the Electoral Commission (ECSL), calling on Parliament to enact the bill's proposed independent framework swiftly to eliminate political interference in commissioner appointments.

A question from a former female Police Officer 

               YOUR VOTE, YOUR VOICE! 

                 ----------------------------------

                 Israel Ojekeh Parper Snr.  

  Blogger/Publisher/GOVERNANCE OBSERVER      

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/

 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:

1. Support the Constitution;
2. 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;
3. Support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
4. Bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
5. 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.

 

Share This Page

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

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