By Kabs Kanu
Poor economy, corruption, drugs, constitutional crisis, institutional capture and the growing erosion of public trust
Sierra Leone is entering a period of profound political uncertainty, and President Julius Maada Bio cannot continue to distance himself from the consequences of the decisions being made under his administration.
President Maada Bio should know that the presidency carries enormous constitutional and political responsibility. And the President must let the sycophants and bootlickers urging him on to understand this.
A lot is happening in Sierra Leone under the president’s watch and these are not covering him in glory. He might not see any dangers in the horizon because the
opposition is weak and state institutions , including the judiciary have been compromised . But when institutions weaken, public confidence collapses, economic hardship deepens and constitutional disputes threaten to divide the nation, the head of state must accept responsibility for the direction in which the country is moving.
I am not unreasonable. I am not arguing that every problem in Sierra Leone was created by President Bio. The country inherited deep structural weaknesses, including poverty, institutional fragility, corruption and the wounds of the civil war. But President Bio has now been in power long enough that his administration must be judged by what it has done with those inherited problems—and by whether its policies have strengthened or weakened the institutions designed to protect the nation. The warning signs are increasingly difficult to ignore, but President Bio is not listening . He is deaf to the clamors of the people like a puff adder. He has created far more problems than the ones he met and has suffered international reprisals for it, but this president does not listen.
The most immediate danger facing Sierra Leone now , apart from corruption, tribalism, weak governance and the narcotics menace, is the controversy surrounding the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025.
Section 108(2) of the 1991 Constitution states that a constitutional amendment bill must be supported on its second and third readings by not less than two-thirds of the Members of Parliament. Parliament’s own Standing Orders repeat this requirement. Yet Parliament proceeded with the controversial amendments amid a bitter dispute over the voting procedure. A 97–46 vote occurred after APC MPs walked out, while the Speaker subsequently referred the constitutional question to the Supreme Court.
That dispute should never be trivialized. Bio is doing so and it is a dire mistake. The issue is not simply whether one political party wins a parliamentary vote. It is whether constitutional rules can be altered in circumstances where a substantial part of the opposition disputes the legality of the process. President Bio now faces an enormous constitutional responsibility to reject the bill.
The Sierra Leone Labour Congress has publicly called on him to reject the bill and return it to Parliament, arguing that stakeholder submissions were not adequately considered and that the process has damaged confidence in democratic governance. Earlier, the Labour Congress warned that the proposed amendments could produce constitutional uncertainty and national instability and called for the bill to be put on hold for broader consultation. But sycophants are prodding President Bio not to listen.
President Bio has an opportunity to lower the rising temperature in the country but he is complicit in raising it. This is wrong . President Bio must choose caution, consultation and constitutional legality, but he has not.
Bio has chosen confrontation instead. What does this President want to prove ?
President Bio should understand that signing a disputed constitutional amendment is not merely an administrative act. It would be a political decision with consequences for the legitimacy of the constitutional order and the future stability of the nation.
Under the Constitution, when a bill has been duly passed and is presented for presidential signature, the President may refuse to sign and return it to Parliament with reasons. This is what the nation wants President Bio to do. If Parliament subsequently passes it by the required two-thirds majority, it becomes law. But this has not been the case. The two- thirds constitutional threshold was not met.
That constitutional mechanism to reject a controversial bill gives the President an important responsibility at this moment. He should not regard calls for restraint in this matter as an attack on his authority. Nor should he listen only to political loyalists, party activists and those who tell him what they believe he wants to hear. The President’s first constituency is the Republic of Sierra Leone. His first responsibility is to the people of Sierra Leone.
The voices warning against proceeding include organized labour and other stakeholders. Those voices deserve to be heard, not dismissed. The mistake President Bio is making is that he is not listening to advice from wise patriots.
Imagine the asinine Commissioner of Anti- Corruption , Ben Kelfala, who describes himself as “Dangerously educated “ urging President Bio to go on and sign the bill. Is Kelfala seeking the interest of the nation or protecting his paycheck ?
President Bio must know that if chaos breaks out in Sierra Leone, most of these unpatriotic advisers will flee the country to their families in America and leave him to stew in his own juice. He must not allow this to happen if he loves his country and wants peace and stability to reign.
WATCH OUT FOR PART 2
Leave a Reply