THE PEOPLE'S CONSTITUTION
Constitutional Procedure, Electoral Reform and the Crisis of Popular Mandate in Sierra Leone
By Afiewa Freeman & Olivia Jarrett
30 August 2026
Executive Summary
Sierra Leone's constitutional crisis is widely framed as a dispute between the SLPP and APC over proportional representation and a disputed parliamentary vote. Sierra Solutions Policy Institute (SSPI) believes the issue runs deeper: whether the people of Sierra Leone have been properly represented in a process that is rewriting the rules by which they choose their representatives.
Section 5 of the 1991 Constitution states that sovereignty belongs to the people of Sierra Leone, and that government derives its authority from them through the Constitution. The Constitution therefore does not belong to Parliament, the President, or any political party — these institutions exercise powers the Constitution gives them, not powers they own.
SSPI sees two separate but connected concerns. First, the shift from a decade-long constitutional review process to a permanent system of proportional representation has not been shown to reflect a clear, current mandate from the people. Second, there is a genuine dispute over whether Parliament followed the procedure required by section 108 in passing the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025.
The Bill was declared passed on 10 August 2026 after APC members of Parliament walked out over the applicable voting threshold. Parliament has 149 members; two-thirds is 100. Reports indicate 96 members voted in favour. The Speaker ruled that the ordinary majority rule applied; the APC disputes that interpretation. That question should be settled by the courts — and the Speaker himself has referred it to the Supreme Court for guidance.
But the constitutional concern extends beyond vote-counting. The constitutional review process traces back more than a decade, during which Sierra Leone has held new elections, tested proportional representation in 2023, and gone through further consultation. Parliament itself invited civil society and other stakeholders to submit position papers on the proposed electoral system; some favoured First-Past-the-Post, others PR or a mixed system. The public deserves to know how those views shaped the outcome.
There are also allegations that some opposition MPs were offered US$100,000 and an SUV to influence their vote. One APC MP said publicly that he would have accepted such an offer had it been made to him, while maintaining that nothing was actually offered to him. These allegations are not proof of wrongdoing and should be investigated rather than assumed true — but they raise a legitimate question about whether MPs were exercising independent constitutional judgment or responding to party loyalty, political advantage, and possible inducements.
SSPI takes no side between the political parties. We take the side of the constitutional process, and of the people whose sovereignty gives that process its legitimacy.
1. The Constitution Belongs to the People
Section 5 is the starting point. It provides that sovereignty belongs to the people of Sierra Leone, and that government derives its authority from them through the Constitution. This is not ceremonial language: Parliament can amend the Constitution because the Constitution grants it that power; the President's powers and the Speaker's authority likewise flow from the Constitution and parliamentary rules. None of these institutions owns the Constitution.
That distinction matters most when Parliament is changing the rules for electing Parliament itself. Ordinary legislation passes by ordinary majority. Constitutional amendments carry additional safeguards: section 108 requires a special procedure, including support from not less than two-thirds of Members of Parliament. Those safeguards exist precisely because the Constitution sets the rules under which political power is won and exercised. A parliamentary majority can govern — it should not be able to treat the Constitution as ordinary legislation. That is the principle SSPI is defending.
2. The PR Decision Needs a Current Mandate
Sierra Leone's debate over proportional representation is not new. Section 38A provided for PR in specified circumstances, and the system was used in the 2023 parliamentary elections. The current Bill goes further, proposing PR as the permanent constitutional basis for parliamentary elections — a much larger decision.
The constitutional review process began in 2013; the Cowan Commission reported in 2017. Sierra Leone in 2026 is not the country it was then: it has held new elections, gained real-world experience with PR, and lived through further political tension and reform. That raises a basic democratic question: does a consultation conducted years ago still represent the settled wishes of Sierra Leoneans today?
This is not to say the Cowan process was without value — it involved extensive public consultation. But public opinion is not frozen in time. If government wants to permanently change the electoral system, it should be able to show that the people living under that system today have had a meaningful opportunity to accept it.
3. Parliament Asked for Public Views. The Public Responded.
Parliament invited organisations and stakeholders to submit position papers on the constitutional amendments, and they did: civil society organisations, religious bodies and labour representatives all weighed in. The Inter-Religious Council supported First-Past-the-Post; other groups favoured PR or a hybrid system.
The problem is not that views diverged — that is normal. The problem is that the process has not given the public confidence that these competing views were seriously weighed before the constitutional choice was made. Parliament is entitled to disagree with any position paper it receives, but citizens who are asked for their views should be able to see how those views were considered. Otherwise, consultation becomes a formality that precedes the real decision rather than part of it — a concern that is serious for ordinary legislation and far more serious for a constitutional amendment that permanently changes how citizens elect their representatives.
4. Should the People Get an Updated Say?
SSPI is not arguing that section 108 requires a referendum for every constitutional amendment — it does not. The Constitution identifies specific provisions that trigger a referendum requirement, and the electoral provisions at issue here are not automatically among them.
Our argument is about democratic legitimacy. More than ten years have passed since the constitutional review began. The country has changed, the electoral system has changed, and Parliament has recently solicited new submissions from the public. Together, these facts build a strong case for an updated popular mandate. A referendum would let Sierra Leoneans answer the question directly: do we want this constitutional settlement? This is not a claim that Parliament lacks authority — it is an argument that Parliament should not be afraid to let the people confirm a change of this magnitude. Sovereignty should not mean that citizens are consulted once and expected to accept the result forever.
5. The Section 108 Dispute
The immediate legal dispute concerns the parliamentary vote itself. Section 108(2)(b) requires that a constitutional amendment Bill be supported by not less than two-thirds of Members of Parliament. With 149 members, two-thirds requires 100 votes. The Bill was declared passed with 96 votes after APC members walked out over the Speaker's ruling on the applicable threshold — the Speaker held that the ordinary majority rule under section 91(1) applied, while the APC maintains that section 108 required two-thirds of the full membership.
This is now a constitutional question, and SSPI does not pretend to be the Supreme Court. But the country should not simply move past the dispute. The phrase “not less than two-thirds of the Members of Parliament” deserves a clear judicial interpretation. If the required threshold was 100 votes and only 96 were cast in favour, the consequences are obvious; if the Speaker's interpretation is correct, the public deserves to know why. Either way, a definitive answer is owed.
6. Can the Speaker's Ruling Be Challenged?
The Speaker has maintained that his ruling is final while also directing Members to seek an interpretation from the Supreme Court if needed — a position he set out in his 10 August statement and repeated in an open letter dated 20 August. This matters because parliamentary privilege does not place every constitutional question beyond judicial reach.
There is a relevant precedent. In All People's Congress and Others v. Speaker of Parliament and Others ([2002] SLCA 3), the Court of Appeal examined the relationship between parliamentary authority and judicial review, establishing that parliamentary proceedings are not automatically immune from the courts where constitutional limits are in question. That 2002 case does not decide today's dispute, but it answers an important argument: a constitutional dispute inside Parliament does not thereby become immune from the courts. The Supreme Court should be allowed to determine the meaning and application of section 108 — not as an attack on Parliament, but as the constitutional system doing its job.
7. The Allegations Around the Vote
The allegations surrounding the vote deserve careful, measured attention. APC figures have alleged that some MPs were offered US$100,000 and an SUV to influence their vote. APC MP Sorieba Turay said publicly that he would have accepted such an offer had it been made to him, while stating that no one actually offered or gave him money or a vehicle. Separately, an audio recording involving an APC MP and an SLPP MP has circulated, presented as the APC MP asking why he had not “heard from SLPP.” The MP involved disputes both the recording's authenticity and its characterisation.
SSPI is not presenting either matter as proven bribery — that is not our role. Our concern is what these allegations reveal about the wider process. A constitutional amendment should serve the public interest, and if there are credible allegations that Members were offered money or material benefits to influence their votes, the appropriate authorities should investigate, across party lines. The question is legitimate: were Members acting as representatives of the people, as the Constitution expects, or were other interests shaping the outcome?
8. This Isn't Just an APC Matter
The legal challenge should not belong to the APC alone. The party has an obvious political interest in the electoral system, which does not make its constitutional concerns invalid — but it does mean civil society has an important, independent role to play. The Sierra Leone Bar Association, the Human Rights Commission, the Inter-Religious Council, the Council of Churches, the Labour Congress, National Election Watch, women's organisations, disability rights groups and other affected CSOs should consider legal action or intervention in their own right, rather than waiting for the APC to speak for them.
If only the opposition challenges the process, it can be dismissed as a partisan fight. If independent civil society organisations challenge it on constitutional grounds, the message changes: this is about the integrity of the Constitution, not the fortunes of a party. SSPI believes civil society should use every lawful avenue available to seek clarity from the courts — not to stop electoral reform, but to ensure it is lawful, transparent and genuinely representative.
9. What Sierra Solutions Is Calling For
To the President
If assent has not yet been given, withhold it until the constitutional questions surrounding the parliamentary process are resolved, referring the matter for an authoritative and expedited judicial determination if necessary. The President should also support a renewed national conversation on the electoral system: a permanent constitutional change should carry public confidence, not merely the minimum legal mandate.
To Parliament and the Speaker
Make the complete record of the disputed proceedings public and open to judicial interpretation — attendance and voting records, the Speaker's ruling and the amendment record — and create space for the opposition to return to the process and resolve the threshold dispute, rather than letting a procedural disagreement harden into a permanent constitutional fault line. The Speaker's authority should be respected, but a parliamentary ruling should not substitute for judicial interpretation where a constitutional question remains genuinely unresolved.
To the Supreme Court
Urgently clarify the meaning of section 108 and its relationship to ordinary parliamentary voting rules, and clarify the extent to which parliamentary proceedings can be challenged where a constitutional limit is alleged to have been exceeded.
To Civil Society
Do not leave this matter to the political parties. Organisations that took part in the consultation process should consider coordinated legal action or intervention to protect both the constitutional process and the integrity of public participation. The APC has a political interest in the outcome; civil society has a broader one — making the Constitution work for citizens regardless of which party benefits.
To All Political Parties
The Constitution must outlive every political party. Today's ruling party may be tomorrow's opposition, and vice versa; no party should support a constitutional precedent simply because it is convenient today.
To the People of Sierra Leone
Citizens should demand to know what was consulted, what was recommended, what Parliament accepted or rejected, and why. Where a permanent constitutional change follows more than a decade of review and significant change in the country, citizens deserve a meaningful opportunity to confirm whether that settlement still reflects their wishes.
SSPI's Bottom Line
We are not calling for electoral reform to be abandoned. We are calling for it to be done properly: law first, public participation throughout, and the people at the centre of the final decision.
Conclusion
Sierra Leone's crisis is not simply that politicians disagree — disagreement is part of democracy. The deeper problem is that the rules for resolving the disagreement are themselves now in dispute. The people were consulted; the country changed; Parliament asked for new submissions, and people responded, though not with one voice. The amendment was then passed amid a walkout and a dispute over the voting threshold, alongside emerging allegations of political inducement. None of these facts alone proves the amendment invalid — together, they raise a question Sierra Leone cannot afford to ignore: where are the people in this process?
SSPI is not asking the country to choose APC over SLPP. We are asking Sierra Leoneans to choose the Constitution over political convenience; Parliament to respect the limits on its own power; the courts to settle constitutional questions through law, not political pressure; civil society to stand behind its own submissions and constitutional rights; and government to remember that consultation is not the same as consent.
Section 5 says sovereignty belongs to the people. That should not be a line we quote only when convenient — it should guide how major constitutional decisions are made. The people should not simply inherit a constitutional settlement made in their name; they should have a meaningful opportunity to own it.
Sierra Solutions Policy Institute
Our position is simple: constitutional reform should be lawful, transparent, participatory and owned by the people of Sierra Leone.
References
Constitution of Sierra Leone, 1991 (Act No. 6 of 1991), ss. 5, 38A, 91(1), 94(2) and 108.
Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025 (Parliament of Sierra Leone).
All People's Congress and Others v. Speaker of Parliament and Others, Civ. App. No. 13/2000, [2002] SLCA 3 (10 January 2002), Court of Appeal of Sierra Leone. Available via Sierra Leone Legal Information Institute, sierralii.org.
“APC members of parliament walk out of parliament over constitutional amendment vote,” The Sierra Leone Telegraph, 10 August 2026.
“Sierra Leone's constitutional faultline: A walkout, a two-thirds dispute and the stakes for 2028,” The Sierra Leone Telegraph, August 2026.
“Sierra Leone's illegal constitutional amendment raises serious questions about democracy, electoral integrity and the rule of law,” The Sierra Leone Telegraph, August 2026.
“Legal expert says Sierra Leone's Constitutional Amendment Bill is null and void,” The Sierra Leone Telegraph, August 2026.
“A Ruling Against the Text — A critique of the Speaker's Ruling of 10 August 2026 on the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025,” Institute for Legal Research and Advocacy for Justice (ILRAJ), ilraj.org.
“Parliament okays Constitutional Amendment Bill…Speaker calls for Supreme Court clarification,” AYV News, 11 August 2026.
“Parliament of Sierra Leone Passes Constitutional Amendment Bill 2025 Amidst Opposition Walkout,” Sierraloaded, August 2026.
“APC MP Makes Shocking Admission on Alleged $100,000, SUV Bribe Offer,” Sierraloaded, August 2026.
Aki-Sawyerr, Yvonne. “Sierra Leone's Parliament must reject the Constitutional Amendment Bill,” The Sierra Leone Telegraph, 4 August 2026.
“Sierra Leone's parliament debates proposed changes to electoral system,” ConstitutionNet, August 2026.
“Sierra Leone to hold Referendum on constitutional amendments — Attorney General,” Cocorioko, 5 August 2026.
Report of the Constitutional Review Committee (Cowan Commission), Government of Sierra Leone, 2017.
