Former SLPP UK Secretary General,Yankuba G Kai-Samba responds to President Julius Maada Bio’s address on constitutional amendment currently debated in Parliament. 9TH AUGUST 2026
A Citizen’s Rebuttal
Fellow Sierra Leoneans, I am not speaking to you as an opposition member.
I am addressing you as a concerned citizen on fundamental constitutional matters before our parliament.
A national constitution is not for political parties. It is for the people. Therefore my objection to PR system is my opinion alone and not an attack on any political parties.
The President has spoken. I have listened. But there are issues in that speech that demand clarity, because truth and facts matter when we are about to change our Constitution.
1. ON 1996: “ENTRUSTED” VS “SEIZED”
What the President said:
“Thirty years ago, in 1996, I was entrusted with the responsibility of leading Sierra Leone as Head of State.”_
The record shows:
Mr. President, you were not “entrusted” with power. You seized power through a palace coup by removing your boss, Captain Valentine Strasser, as Head of State.
You later allowed elections after less than 3 months not out of choice, but because you were in a country at war, dependent on international handouts. The UK and UN made democratic elections a condition for support.
Political observers have opined that your “Peace Before Elections” proposal, rejected twice at Bintumani, was an attempt to delay and hold on to power. President Kabbah himself made it clear that the NRC “reluctantly left power”
The NRC coup, against the backdrop of 20 years of one-party rule, was popular. But it prolonged the multiparty elections enshrined in the 1991 Constitution before the coup of 1992. It can be argued that the NRC coup disrupted political pluralism for 6 years.
2. ON PEACE: “INITIATED” VS “NO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE”*
What the President said:
“I initiated negotiations with the Revolutionary United Front”
The record shows:
The only thing you have ever said publicly about meeting rebel leader Corporal Foday Sankoh was that you held talks with him behind closed doors.
You have never made a public disclosure of what was discussed. Yet you keep referencing it as your contribution to peace. The concern is that after your meeting with Sankoh, the RUF increased their brutality and violence against our people.
3. ON PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION: THE DANGERS FOR SALONE
What the President said:
“It introduces proportional representation to broaden participation and give women, young people, professionals, and minority groups a fairer opportunity”
My response:
I have serious difficulties with PR for a country like Sierra Leone:
1. It excludes small parties.
In a bipolar electorate of mainly SLPP and APC, PR will lock out around 14 smaller political parties who would have had a chance under First-Past-the-Post constituency elections.
2. It removes your right to choose. PR takes the power from the people and places it in the hands of party bosses. You will not vote for a person. The party will select your MP.
3. It breaks accountability.
This effectively cuts the link between MPs and the public. MPs’ loyalty will be to the party, not to you. Who will you go to when there is no school, no water, no clinic, and high cost of living in your area?
4. It is open to abuse.
Those who control the party can stuff Parliament with their friends, relatives, and concubines to advance their own political ambitions.
5. It weakens representation.
The role of an MP is to make laws and check the powers of the executive. To do this effectively, MPs need to be near the people and get feedback. PR will not promote this.
4. ON CHIEFS AND SERVICE DELIVERY.
The President’s speech did not assure our Paramount Chiefs. Under PR, the already undervalued, grossly underpaid, and overburdened Chiefs will face even greater demands for community development and individual support from their people. Who will support them?
5. ON WOMEN’S 30% QUOTA
I welcome women’s participation through the 30% affirmative action. However, this could have been left to political parties to ensure women are represented, without dismantling constituency representation.
6. ON “NATIONWIDE CONSULTATION”
What the President said:
“The Cowan Committee conducted more than 10,000 public consultations… This was a truly national process”_
The reality:
Mr. President, the claim that this amendment received nationwide consultation is neither practical nor plausible.
If you travel to rural communities today and ask the majority, “What is Proportional Representation?” they will ask, “What is that?”
If you ask them in simple terms: “Do you want to keep your right to choose your MP, or should the party choose for you?” They will say: “We want to choose ourselves.”
I reject the claim that there was extensive, proper public education and information to the public.
7. CONCLUSION
I join the President in saying this constitutional amendment is not about him. Constitutions are for the people and by the people.
But I believe the vast majority of our people, if given the vote on PR, would overwhelmingly vote AGAINST it.
For this reason alone, Parliament should REJECT PR.
Do not vote for a party. Vote for the people.
Vote to protect the right of our people to choose who they want to be their member of parliament. If I were an SLPP MP today I will vote against PR because I want to be with my people in constituency and work with them to better understand policies that impact on their lives.
May God bless Sierra Leone and protect our people.
Leave a Reply