Sierra Leone's Parliament was plunged into a significant constitutional confrontation on Monday, August 10, over a proposal to establish a Search and Nomination Committee for Electoral Commissioners. The dispute escalated dramatically when Opposition Leader Abdul Kargbo led 49 lawmakers from the All People's Congress (APC) out of the chamber. This walkout by the APC members was a direct protest against the procedure by which the constitutional amendment was being considered, rather than a rejection of the proposed Search and Nomination Committee itself. The opposition had specifically stated that their action was not aimed at blocking the creation of the committee, but rather at challenging the legislative process being employed. Following the departure of the opposition lawmakers, the Speaker indicated that the matter will be referred to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court holds original jurisdiction over matters involving the interpretation or enforcement of the Constitution, as stipulated under Section 124, making it the ultimate arbiter in such constitutional disputes. This referral shows the gravity of the procedural disagreement that brought parliamentary proceedings to a standstill.
The Procedural Dispute
The core of the conflict emerged when opposition lawmakers walked out of the chamber after the Speaker ruled that Parliament could decide individual provisions of a constitutional amendment bill by a simple majority during the committee stage. The opposition All People's Congress (APC) vehemently insisted on a vote to establish a broader constitutional principle: whether Parliament, when considering a bill to alter the Constitution, must apply the Constitution’s two-thirds safeguard to substantive decisions concerning the proposed alterations. This was a key point of contention, as the APC argued that the spirit of constitutional amendments required a higher threshold throughout the process. Section 108 of the 1991 Constitution states that a bill under the constitutional amendment procedure cannot be passed unless supported on its second and third readings by not less than two-thirds of the Members of Parliament. The APC's stance was that this two-thirds requirement should extend beyond just the final readings to the substantive decisions made during the committee stage.
Standing Order 44(1) provides the general rule that questions in Parliament or a Committee of the Whole are decided by a majority of members present and voting. However, Standing Order 44(3) recognises an explicit exception to this general rule, stating that a bill altering the Constitution requires two-thirds support on its second and third readings, pursuant to Section 108. The Constitution is supreme, and Standing Orders are subordinate procedural rules that must align with the constitutional framework. Section 94(1) allows Parliament to regulate its own procedure, but expressly makes that power subject to the Constitution, reinforcing the supremacy of the constitutional provisions. The APC's argument centered on the idea that while Standing Orders govern parliamentary procedure, they cannot override or diminish the constitutional safeguards designed for alterations to the nation's foundational legal document.
The Speaker, Segepoh Thomas, and Deputy Speaker argued that the simple majority rule applies during committee consideration because Section 108(2)(b) expressly refers to the second and third readings as the stages requiring the two-thirds majority. They contended that the two-thirds requirement was only applicable at these specific, formal stages of the legislative process, and not during the clause-by-clause consideration in committee. The APC, however, argued that constitutional safeguards should attach to the substance of constitutional alteration, not merely to the procedural moment of second and third readings. The party calculated that if the simple-majority principle was accepted for this clause, it could become a dangerous procedural precedent for subsequent clauses within the same amendment bill, and potentially for future constitutional amendments. This, they contended, could undermine the very essence of the two-thirds safeguard, making it easier to alter the Constitution without broad consensus. The opposition believed that allowing a simple majority at the committee stage would effectively circumvent the higher bar set by the Constitution for significant changes.
Context and Stakes
The All People's Congress (APC) reportedly selected the Electoral Commission provision as a test case for this fundamental procedural dispute. This choice was strategic, aiming to establish a clear precedent for how constitutional amendments should be handled moving forward. The government, however, maintained that no constitutional provision had yet been altered, asserting that alteration would only occur if the Bill eventually passed the constitutionally prescribed second and third readings with the required two-thirds majority. This perspective suggested that the committee stage decisions were merely preparatory and did not constitute a final alteration. Despite the procedural disagreement, the opposition APC supported the establishment of the proposed committee to search for and nominate Electoral Commissioners, indicating that their protest was purely about process, not the substance of this particular reform. Conversely, the ruling Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) favored retaining the existing system for appointing Electoral Commissioners, which allows the President to appoint Electoral Commissioners after consultation with registered political parties, subject to parliamentary approval.
Parliament subsequently voted 96 to 41 to retain the current appointment arrangement for Electoral Commissioners, effectively rejecting the proposal for a Search and Nomination Committee. This vote took place after the opposition walkout and showed the numerical advantage held by the ruling party. This existing arrangement allows the President to appoint Electoral Commissioners after consultation with registered political parties, subject to parliamentary approval. The proposed amendments to the Constitution extend beyond the Electoral Commission, encompassing alterations to the electoral system, including the use of proportional representation and adjustments to the presidential threshold. Critics contend that the combined effect of these reforms could significantly strengthen the SLPP’s prospects of retaining power in the 2028 general elections. These proposed changes are viewed by some as an attempt to consolidate political power rather than purely improve electoral integrity.
Proposed changes to electoral boundaries and the creation of additional districts have already generated questions about their potential political consequences, with concerns raised about gerrymandering and its impact on future election outcomes. The Constitution deliberately makes constitutional alteration more difficult than ordinary legislation, requiring publication of the proposed changes, two-thirds support at both second and third readings, and, for specified entrenched provisions, approval by a national referendum. At the second and third readings, the Constitution requires two-thirds of the total Members of Parliament, not merely two-thirds of those who happen to remain in the chamber at the time of the vote, noting the high bar for constitutional change. The central question at stake, which the Supreme Court is now poised to address, is whether Parliament can use ordinary rules of legislative procedure to make substantive decisions about constitutional alteration before the Constitution’s extraordinary safeguards become operative. This question is critical for upholding the integrity and stability of Sierra Leone's constitutional framework.
Calls for Resolution
The Speaker, Segepoh Thomas, initially ruled that Parliament could proceed with the simple-majority basis for considering individual provisions of the constitutional amendment bill. This ruling directly triggered the opposition walkout and the subsequent constitutional crisis. Following this ruling, Speaker Thomas indicated that the Supreme Court would be asked to determine the lawfulness of that proceeding. This referral to the Supreme Court signifies the recognition of the profound legal implications of the procedural dispute and the need for an authoritative interpretation of the Constitution. President Julius Maada Bio addressed Parliament on Sunday, urging lawmakers to pass the amendment Bill, signaling the government's strong desire to see these reforms enacted.
Former Speaker Dr. Abass Chernor Bundu has repeatedly emphasized the exceptional character of Sierra Leone’s constitutional amendment procedure, stressing that it is designed to be more rigorous than ordinary lawmaking to protect the foundational principles of the state. The current Speaker, Segepoh Thomas, also presided over 2024 proceedings that resulted in the removal of the Auditor-General. During those proceedings, Parliament recorded 100 votes in favor out of 137 participating members, demonstrating the Speaker's experience in navigating politically charged parliamentary actions. The Constitution, according to observers, belongs to neither the All People's Congress (APC) nor the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP), but rather to all citizens of Sierra Leone. This perspective shows the importance of upholding constitutional principles impartially, regardless of political affiliation. The impending Supreme Court decision is therefore anticipated with significant public interest, as it will not only resolve the immediate parliamentary impasse but also set a key precedent for future constitutional amendments and the interpretation of legislative procedure in Sierra Leone. The outcome will have lasting implications for the balance of power and the sanctity of the nation's supreme law.