Citizens of Sierra Leone have publicly criticized and embarrassed Mr. Solomon Segepor Thomas, the Speaker of the Sierra Leone Parliament, on social media concerning his rulings. The backlash follows a post made at 5:36 AM, which accurately cited Section 94(2) of the Sierra Leone Constitution. This constitutional provision is central to the ongoing scrutiny of the Speaker's decisions, leading to public debate and engagement online regarding parliamentary procedures and adherence to legal frameworks. The social media discussion notes citizen interest in the interpretation and application of the nation's legal statutes by parliamentary leadership, particularly concerning the limits of parliamentary power and the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional integrity.
Constitutional Authority and Claims
The Speaker's ruling last Monday declared that amending the constitution by a simple majority, rather than the constitutionally mandated two-thirds majority of Members of Parliament's votes, was final and immune from judicial interpretation or inquiry. This assertion, made by Mr. Solomon Segepor Thomas, has drawn significant attention to specific sections of the Sierra Leone Constitution that outline the powers of Parliament and the judiciary. According to Section 108 of the Constitution, two-thirds of all Members of Parliament are required for constitutional amendments. This specific requirement shows the gravity with which constitutional changes are to be approached, ensuring broad consensus and stability.
Conversely, Section 124 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court exclusive power to interpret the Constitution. More specifically, Section 124 (1) (a) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone Act No. 6 of 1991 states that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all matters concerning the enforcement or interpretation of any constitutional provision. This jurisdiction extends to questions arising under Section 124 (1) (b), which provides the Supreme Court with original jurisdiction when any question arises as to whether an enactment "WAS MADE IN EXCESS OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON PARLIAMENT OR ANY OTHER AUTHORITY OR PERSON BY LAW OR UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION." This provision explicitly allows for judicial review of parliamentary enactments. Additionally, Section 122 (1) of the 1991 Constitution permits the President to refer a Petition to the Supreme Court for a final opinion on such matters, further solidifying the Supreme Court's role as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional questions.
The 2002 Precedent
A significant precedent was established on January 10, 2002, when the Appeal Court delivered a ruling against the actions of the then Speakers of Sierra Leone Parliament. The case, titled “CIV.APP. 13/2000,” involved the All People's Congress (APC) versus the Speaker of Parliament. The Justices presiding over the case on that date were Justice Tolla Thompson, Justice Abel Stronge, and Justice Patricia Macaulay. Their collective judgment would prove instrumental in defining the boundaries of parliamentary authority.
The court's decision strongly favored the APC, rejecting the legal arguments put forth by the Speakers of Parliament and Attorney General Solomon Berewa. This occurred despite Mr. Berewa's reliance on Section 94(2) of the Constitution in his arguments, which he presented to justify the parliamentary actions in question. The judgment explicitly outlined the judiciary's role in constitutional matters concerning parliamentary conduct, asserting its right to intervene when constitutional principles are challenged.
The judgment, specifically on Page 9 of the Main judgment in APC versus the Speaker of Parliament, stated: "IF in the performance of these duties, Parliament does not act in accordance with the Constitution, it is the job of the Court to intervene to say so loud and clear." This declaration unequivocally shows the judiciary's authority to review parliamentary actions for constitutional compliance, establishing a critical check on legislative power. It serves as a powerful reminder that parliamentary actions, even those by the Speaker, are not beyond judicial scrutiny.
Through this ruling, the court set the precedent that any Speaker accused of going against the Constitution is immediately subjected to the jurisdiction of the Courts. This legal interpretation affirmed the judiciary's power to scrutinize parliamentary proceedings and ensure adherence to constitutional provisions, even when a Speaker's actions are challenged. The 2002 decision has since served as a foundational reference regarding the separation of powers and the limits of parliamentary immunity in Sierra Leone, reinforcing the principle that no branch of government operates without constitutional oversight.
Judicial Review and Finality
A post on the Parliament of Sierra Leone Facebook page, made at 5:36 AM, stated, “The Speaker’s Ruling is final and cannot be interpreted or enquired into by any Court of Law.” This assertion followed Speaker Rt. Hon. Segepoh Solomon Thomas's statement to Parliament on Monday, August 10, 2026, where he indicated that Section 108 of the Constitution must be interpreted by the Supreme Court, acknowledging the Court's sole authority to decide constitutional questions. This seemingly contradictory stance has fueled further public and legal debate.
The Lawyers’ Society has voiced concerns, stating that passing a constitutional amendment without the constitutionally mandated two-thirds majority is both dangerous and invalid. This position aligns with past judicial pronouncements regarding parliamentary authority and the sanctity of constitutional provisions. In the Sierra Leone Supreme Court Case of All People’s Congress & 4 Others v. The Speaker of Parliament & 5 Others [2002], the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over legislation enacted in excess of Parliament's powers was affirmed, providing a clear legal basis for challenging such actions.
The judges in that landmark case further clarified the limits of the Speaker's authority. On Page 10 of their Main judgment in APC versus the Speaker of Parliament, the judges stated, "To our minds, the Constitution does not give the Speaker absolute power." This judicial perspective reinforces the judiciary's role in scrutinizing parliamentary actions for constitutional compliance, directly contradicting any claim that a Speaker's ruling is beyond legal inquiry. The ongoing public discourse and legal interpretations show the delicate balance of power within Sierra Leone's governance structure and the unwavering importance of constitutional adherence.