Legislative Drama: From Second Reading to the APC Walkout
Executive Summary
Part III examines the decisive parliamentary phase of Sierra Leone’s 2026 Constitutional Amendment Bill, tracing the journey from the Second Reading through the Committee Stage and culminating in the dramatic APC walkout. Although the substantive reforms—such as the 50%+1 presidential threshold, proportional representation, dual citizenship eligibility, women’s leadership quotas, and district distribution requirements—were broadly understood and long‑debated, the real confrontation emerged over procedure, not content, although there were strong doubts and dissatisfaction on the opposition side.
Despite the walkout, quorum was maintained, and the Bill proceeded to Third Reading, where it supposedly passed with a VOICE VOTING CALL, with SLPP MPs, Paramount Chiefs, and two remaining APC MPs. The Speaker then took the unprecedented step of referring the procedural dispute to the Supreme Court, recognising that the threshold question had become a constitutional matter requiring judicial interpretation.
Part III therefore captures the moment when a legislative process transformed into a constitutional test case—highlighting the tension between parliamentary discretion and constitutional safeguards, and setting the stage for judicial review.
The Procedural Fault‑Lines That Shaped the 2026 Amendment’s Final Hours
The journey from Second Reading to so-called passage of the 2026 Constitutional Amendment Bill was not merely legislative choreography; it was a stress test of Sierra Leone’s constitutional procedures, exposing ambiguities in Section 91(1) (voting thresholds) and Section 108 (amendment procedures). These ambiguities—long dormant—became the centre of political confrontation.
1. The Second Reading: Consensus on Substance, Division on Procedure
At Second Reading, MPs broadly agreed on the substantive reforms—50%+1 threshold, PR retention, dual citizenship eligibility, women’s quota, District distribution rule. But the procedural question emerged early:
Was a simple majority sufficient for passage?
Or did the Bill’s mixed content trigger Section 108 (2) and (3) (entrenched provisions requiring a two-thirds majority or referendum)?
The government argued that the Bill carefully avoided entrenched clauses, making it a non‑entrenched amendment requiring only a simple majority under Section 91(1). Opposition MPs insisted that several provisions “touched the architecture” of entrenched sections, thereby requiring a two‑thirds majority or referendum.
This disagreement set the stage for the Committee Stage confrontation. The Bill then passed to the Committee Stage, with this overhanging cloud.
2. Committee Stage: The Threshold Dispute Hardens
During Committee deliberations, the Attorney General’s team repeatedly emphasised that:
The Bill was drafted to avoid Section 108(2) and 108(3) triggers even though significant clauses functionally changed the constitution.
Every clause, he claimed, fell within the non‑entrenched zone
Therefore, Section 91(1) (simple majority) governed the voting process.
Opposition members countered that:
The electoral system, presidential qualification rules, and district distribution requirements were “functionally entrenched,” even if not textually entrenched.
Therefore, the Bill’s cumulative effect amounted to a structural alteration of the constitution; therefore, the appropriate voting process lies with section 108.
This disagreement hardened into a procedural standoff.
3. The 97–46 Vote and the APC Walkout
The decisive moment came when the Speaker Segepoh Soloman Thomas called the vote on the procedural question. The tally: 97 in favour, 46 against. But before announcing he would apply section 91(1), Mr Speaker delved into a monologue of a lecture, skipping from one section of the Constitution to another, back and forth, pin-pointing exceptions to the section 91 general rule in effect and announced the tally, based on a simple majority basis though in the process, he did mention more than once, that the second and Thir Readings require two-thirds majority (under section 108)
The Opposition MPs protested that the vote itself was premature; The Speaker had misapplied Section 91(1). The Bill required a supermajority or referendum under section 108.
When the Speaker upheld this simple‑majority interpretation, the APC Leader in Parliament,
Hon. Abdul Kargbo addressed the Speaker, called on all the Opposition members, and staged a walkout, leaving only two rebel APC MPs in the chamber as they could not be a party to such unconstitutional abrogation.This walkout was not symbolic—it was strategic: It denied the government the optics of bipartisan passage which the Speaker was desperate to display; It preserved the APC’s legal argument for future challenges; and it framed the Bill as procedurally contaminated, regardless of its substantive merits.
4. Third Reading: Passage Without the Main Opposition
With the APC absent, the Third Reading proceeded swiftly with the Speaker conducting a VOICE VOTE with only 97 MPs present and blindly applying the same simple majority voting process.
The Speaker then ruled the Bill passed with only SLPP MPs, Paramount Chief MPs, and the TWO rebel members of the APC, Mohamed Bangura and Alfred Ayodele Thompson.
The Speaker then took an unprecedented step: he referred the procedural dispute to the Supreme Court, requesting constitutional interpretation of: Section 91(1) — Does “votes of the majority of members present and voting” apply to constitutional amendments? Section 108 — Can Parliament pass a constitutional amendment without referendum if the Bill avoids entrenched clauses? The legality of the 97–46 vote. The validity of the Third Reading conducted after the walkout
This referral transformed a political dispute into a constitutional question of first impression. Was the Speaker sure of what he was doing in the Committee stage and Third Reading? Has he blundered? Why did the Speaker not stay proceedings, seek clarification from the Supreme Court first, and then proceed with the Third Reading based on the Supreme Court's opinion or ruling?
CONCLUSION
From Parliamentary Conflict to Constitutional Clarification
The events of Part III reveal a Parliament navigating both political tension and constitutional ambiguity. What began as a routine legislative process evolved into a confrontation over the very architecture of constitutional amendment procedure. The Speaker’s reliance on Section 91(1), the APC’s insistence on Section 108, and the dramatic walkout collectively exposed long‑standing uncertainties in Sierra Leone’s amendment framework.
Yet the Speaker’s final act—referring the matter to the Supreme Court—shifted the dispute from the political arena to the judicial domain. This referral acknowledges that the question at hand is not merely procedural but foundational: How should Sierra Leone interpret the relationship between general voting rules and entrenched constitutional safeguards?
Appendix.
Section 91 vs Section 108 — Part III .
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
🎀 SECTION 91 vs SECTION 108 — PROVISION OVERVIEW.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
🟦SECTIONS INVOLVED
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
🔵 Section 91(1) → General voting rule → Simple majority
🟣 Section 108 → Constitutional safeguard → Two‑thirds majority
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
🟩 TYPE OF RULE
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
🟢 General Parliamentary Rule → Ordinary decisions + Committee Stage
🟣 Amendment Safeguard → Second & Third Readings of amendment bills
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
🟧 THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
🟠Ordinary Decisions → Simple majority (50% + 1)
🔴 Entrenched Provisions → Two‑thirds of ALL MPs
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
🟪 APPLICATION OF RULES
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
🔵 Section 91(1) → Applies to ordinary votes + clause‑by‑clause
🟣 Section 108 → Applies to constitutional amendments (2nd & 3rd Reading)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
🟨 GOVERNMENT POSITION
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
🟡 Clause votes = Section 91(1)
🟡 Section 108 only triggered if entrenched provisions are touched
🟡 Simple majority valid unless entrenched clauses involved
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
🟥 APC POSITION
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
🔴 Section 108 cannot be overridden
🔴 ALL constitutional amendments require two‑thirds
🔴 Clause segmentation does NOT remove the safeguard
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
🟦 ORIGIN OF DISPUTE
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
🔵 Speaker used Section 91(1) → 97–46 vote
🔴 APC insisted Section 108(2)(b) → two‑thirds required
🟣 Disagreement → procedural conflict → APC walkout
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
🟪 SUPREME COURT QUESTIONS
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
🟣 Can Section 91(1) govern amendment procedure?
🟣 Did the Bill trigger Section 108?
🟣 What threshold applies at Committee, Second, and Third Reading?
🟣 Decision will shape future amendment processes.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
🎀 
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
