As of 19 October 2026, the constitutional dispute surrounding the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025/2026 remains unresolved, and the matter is now firmly before the Supreme Court. (Key Online Publications reporting the status of events include: sierraleonemonitor; sierraloaded;
sierraleonemonitor; premiermedia-sl.)
Key developments between 7 October and 19 October 2026
1. Supreme Court hearings began on 7 October
The Supreme Court commenced hearings into multiple legal challenges to the amendment bill, which had been passed by Parliament on 10 August 2026 amid controversy over the required voting threshold. The central question remains whether constitutional amendments required a two-thirds majority of all MPs or merely a simple majority of members present and voting. [citation]
(sierraleonemonitor)
2. Court dismissed an early procedural objection
On 7 October, the Court rejected a procedural challenge brought by APC lawyers against an application by the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney-General to consolidate several related constitutional cases. The Court allowed the consolidation application to proceed. Importantly, it did not rule on the constitutional merits at that stage. [citation]
(sierraloaded)
3. Dramatic clash between the Chief Justice and APC counsel JFK
On 8 October, proceedings became highly contentious when lawyer Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara (JFK), representing APC interests, clashed with Chief Justice Komba Kamanda. The Chief Justice held that Kamara's apology to the Court was inadequate, ordered him to remove his wig and enter the dock, and contempt proceedings followed. The incident generated significant political and legal discussion nationwide. [citation]
(sierraleonemonitor)
4. Cases were consolidated
By mid-October, the Court was dealing with three consolidated constitutional actions challenging the passage of the amendment bill. The consolidated proceedings involve challenges from APC figures, individual MPs and civil society actors. The Institute for Legal Research and Advocacy for Justice (ILRAJ) was also admitted as an amicus curiae (friend of the court). [citation]
(sierraleonemonitor)
5. Main constitutional issue remains the "100 votes" question
The challengers argue that Section 108 requires support from two-thirds of all MPs, which would amount to about 100 votes in the 149-member Parliament. They contend that Parliament recorded approximately 96-97 affirmative votes, which would fall short of the constitutional threshold. [citation]
(sierraleonemonitor)
6. Government filed a major preliminary objection (16-19 October)
The most significant recent development is that the Government has asked the Supreme Court to strike out the entire challenge before the merits are heard. The State argues:
•Courts cannot review Parliament's internal proceedings because of constitutional protections.
•The Bill is not yet law, as presidential assent has not been granted.
•Any challenge is therefore premature.
•The courts should not interfere with the President's constitutional discretion regarding assent. [citation] (sierraleonemonitor.
The Government's application was filed on 16 October 2026 and publicly reported on 19 October 2026. The State also requested that further proceedings be paused pending determination of its preliminary objection. At the time of reporting, no hearing date had yet been fixed for that objection. [citation]
(sierraleonemonitor).
Current status as of 19 October 2026
•No final Supreme Court judgment has been delivered. [citation] (sierraleonemonitor)
•President Bio has not assented to the Bill. He previously referred constitutional questions for judicial clarification. (premiermedia-sl)
•The Court must first decide whether it has jurisdiction and whether the challenges can proceed before any substantive ruling on the voting threshold issue. The constitutional and political uncertainty therefore continues.
Bottom-line assessment
The crisis has moved from Parliament into the judiciary. Between 7 and 19 October 2026, the major developments were procedural rather than substantive: consolidation of cases, courtroom confrontations, and the Government's attempt to have the challenges dismissed. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the decisive constitutional question of whether the amendment bill was validly passed with fewer than 100 votes. [citation]
(sierraloaded).
Futheron we shall examine and provide a constitutional-law analysis of the competing interpretations of Sections 91, 94, 108, 122 and 127, together with a likely-outcomes assessment and implications for Sierra Leone's democratic framework.
No comments:
Post a Comment