Friday, 31 July 2026

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.

Wednesday, 29 July 2026

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

Saturday, 25 July 2026

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

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

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

Abstract

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

The High Court - Freetown Sierra Leone

Introduction

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

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

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

Understanding Section 45

The starting point is the law itself.

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

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

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

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

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

Former President Ernest Bai Koroma

Neither Convicted Nor Acquitted

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accountability Versus Reconciliation.

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

At least three narratives are likely to emerge.

Narrative One: Reconciliation Has Triumphed

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

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

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

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

Narrative Two: Accountability Was Compromised

Others will take a different view.

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

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

Critics may ask:

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

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

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

Narrative Three: Constitutional Pragmatism

A third interpretation may ultimately prove the most persuasive.

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

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

The Rule of Law Question

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

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

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

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

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

The Constitutional Implications.

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

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

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

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

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

Could the Case Return?

The discontinuance has understandably generated speculation about the future.

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

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

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

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

What Does This Mean for the APC Party?

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

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

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

How might this affect opposition leaders generally?

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

Positive lesson

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

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

Negative lesson

The opposite interpretation is also possible.

Some opposition party figures may think:

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

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

Long-term effect

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

Lessons for Sierra Leone's Constitutional Future.

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

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

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

Should prosecutorial guidelines be published to enhance transparency and consistency?

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

To the APC, it signals de-escalation.

To the government, it may signal reconciliation.

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

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

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

End: