Citizens of Sierra Leone have embarrassed the Speaker of the Sierra Leone Parliament , Mr. Solomon Segepor Thomas, on social media.
This morning, on the Facebook website of Parliament, it was announced that the ruling by the Speaker last Monday to amend the constitution by simple majority and not by the constitutionally- mandated 2/3rd majority of the votes of MPs was final and cannot be interpreted or enquired into by any court of law.
Journalist Sylvia Blyden was one of the citizens who wrote to impugn the Speaker :
After 48 hours of no written updates from the Parliament about the purported Constitutional Amendment, I woke up this morning to see a post uploaded at 5:36AM this early morning on to the Parliament of Sierra Leone Facebook page and it claims as follows:
“The Speaker’s Ruling is final and cannot be interpreted or enquired into by any Court of Law.”
I can imagine the kinds of all night meetings under the aegis of _Lux in Tenebris_ which led to that 5am post.
Hmmmmm. Just imagine! 🤔
Someone powerful woke up the Parliament P.R. Department at 5am to go and update Parliament Facebook page at 5am.
Just imagine! 🤔
Anyway, the above 5:36AM post is correctly quoting from Section 94(2) of the Sierra Leone Constitution. It however does not show the whole picture and that is why I am doing this IMMEDIATE WRITTEN REBUTTAL to Parliament so as to help educate citizens.
If it is the Speaker who ordered that material to be issued then he is continuing to behave in a bizarre manner that impugns the standard we deserve from him as citizens of this Republic.
If it is the Speaker then it appears that this time, after publicly forgetting what he told us that he was taught as a small boy in Primary School, the Speaker seems to have forgotten what he certainly should have been taught in Law School about the landmark precedent Court Case where, on 10th January 2002, the well learned Appeal Court with Justice Tolla Thompson, Justice Abel Stronge and Justice Patricia Macaulay ruled against the acts of the then Speaker(s) of Sierra Leone Parliament.
It was in the case of APC versus the Speaker of Parliament intituled as “CIV.APP. 13/2000” and in which the learned Justices ruled strongly against the rulings and actions of two successive Speakers of Parliament (Speaker Kutubu & Speaker Cowan).
The then SLPP Attorney General Solomon Berewa had tried to defend the two Speakers’ conduct against Minority Leader of the Opposition Hon. Dr. John Karefa Smart of UNPP and 6 other MPs including four MPs of the All Peoples Congress which party was by then led by late S.A.T. Koroma as APC National Chairman.
In his defense, SLPP’s Solomon Berewa quoted this exact same ‘no court can inquire into the acts of the Speaker’ which is as stated under Section 94(2) of the Constitution. However the Court VERY STRONGLY ruled in favour of the APC against the Speakers of Parliament and Attorney General Solomon Berewa’s legal arguments.
Tolla Thompson, Abel Stronge and Patricia Macaulay, are all three, now of blessed memory (May their souls rest in perfect peace) but their Judgment stands in solid rock and all Law Students, including the current Speaker Segepoh Solomon Thomas, who paid attention in class, will have learnt those famous words in the judgment which went thus:
👇
“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”.
👆
The above were the verbatim words of the three learned Judges on Page 9 of their Main judgement that day against the Speaker of Parliament and the SLPP led Government.
Furthermore, I paraphrase their additional words on Page 10 thus:
👇
‘To our minds, the Constitution does not give the Speaker absolute power’.
😃
On that wonderful day in Sierra Leone, the Courts set the precedent that any Speaker of Parliament who is accused of going against the Constitution has IMMEDIATELY become subjected to the jurisdiction of the Courts despite what Section 94(2) says.
Just a mere accusation that a Speaker has gone against the Constitution IMMEDIATELY subjects him to the Courts of Sierra Leone!!!
Yes! That is the wonderful case of APC versus Speaker of Parliament as judged almost 25 years ago on 10th January 2002.
So with respect to the Speaker and Parliament, the contents of their post this morning further strengthens citizens’ concerns over the Speaker’s extreme departure from a reasonable standard of care that citizens should be given.
Now there is much more that I can say but I believe I have said enough for my people to understand that the Speaker cannot ‘Open Call’ us into silence. He cannot browbeat us to become afraid. No way!
UNDER MY LEADERSHIP, as one of Sierra Leone’s strongest Women ever born on these shores, I will continue to urge my fellow citizens to speak up and use our voices to lawfully challenge the Speaker’s actions and all other person’s actions that are in excess of our sacred Constitution.
I am not even going to proceed to lecture on what Section 124(2)(b) says about how the Supreme Court has power to interpret any question arising over a Law made in excess of Parliament’s powers.
———————
WROTE ALBERT DAVID
On Monday, 10 August 2026, Speaker Rt. Hon. Segepoh Solomon Thomas told Parliament that Section 108 must be interpreted by the Supreme Court, admitting that only the Court can decide constitutional questions. But today, he posted publicly that his ruling is final and no court can challenge him, a direct contradiction and a constitutional crisis.
The Constitution is supreme. Section 108 requires two‑thirds of all MPs. Section 124 gives the Supreme Court exclusive power to interpret the Constitution. A Speaker cannot override the courts, the Constitution, or the rule of law. The First Lady praised honourable, inclusive leadership, not leaders who place themselves above the Constitution. The APC warned his ruling violates Section 108.
The Lawyers’ Society said passing a constitutional amendment without two‑thirds is dangerous and invalid. No Speaker can override constitutional supremacy, judicial review, or separation of powers. Only the Constitution is final. Only the Supreme Court is final, and Only the people are final.
When a Speaker claims his ruling is above the Constitution, he is not interpreting the law, he is trying to replace it.
https://thesaloneindependentchronicle.com/#/article/cmsqfixcs00jeov01c4bz3xed
——-////———/
ARUNA BUNDU CONTEH WROTE :
The Speaker is absolutely 💯 wrong 🤐.
According to Section 124 (1) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone Act No.6 of 1991, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction:
Section 124 (1) (a):
In all matters relating to the enforcement or interpretation of any provision of the Constitution.
Further, and significantly, according to Section 124 (1) (b), the Supreme Court has ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:
Where any question arises 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. ”
Thus, the legal implications of Section 124 (1) (b) is that, contrary to the disingenuous argument advanced by the Speaker, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over this 2025 Bill which was made in excess of the powers (2/3 majority of votes by MPs) conferred upon this Parliament.
Further, by virtue of Section 122 (1) of the 1991 Constitution , even the President may refer a Petition in which he has to give a final decision, such as signing this 2025 Constitution Amendment Bill, to the Supreme Court “for a final opinion.”
The Sierra Leone Supreme Court Case of All People’s Congress & 4 Others v. The Speaker of Parliament & 5 Others [2002] (below) supports my argument.
By: Aruna Bundu-Conteh Esq: LLB (Hons) (London), LLM (London), PhD in Law (London), Barrister & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone 🇸🇱
Leave a Reply