WHEN POWER MEETS THE CONSTITUTION: SIERRA LEONE IS WATCHING

WHEN POWER MEETS THE CONSTITUTION: SIERRA LEONE IS WATCHING

By Emmanuel Swarray

Today, Sierra Leone will watch.

Not merely because Parliament, the Executive and political parties have a profound interest in what the Court will say.

Sierra Leone will watch because something greater than all of us is before the Court: the Constitution itself.

And when the Constitution is before the Supreme Court, the nation must pause. The political noise must become quieter.

The partisan banners must come down. The arguments of power must give way to the language of law.

Because today is not simply about who is right and who is wrong.

It is about whether the rules governing the highest law of our Republic can be interpreted in a manner that preserves the safeguards written into that law.

The matter before the Court arises from competing interpretations of the constitutional provisions governing parliamentary decisions and constitutional amendments, particularly Sections 91(1) and 108(2). The dispute has generated questions about the required parliamentary threshold for the constitutional amendment.

These may appear to some as words buried deep inside a legal document.

They are not.

They are the locks on the door of our constitutional house.

And when the nation asks whether those locks were properly respected, the answer can not be determined by political convenience.

It must be determined by the Constitution.

To the Honourable Justices, today, you will hear lawyers speak.

You will examine authorities.

You will interrogate constitutional language.

You will weigh competing interpretations.

Ultimately, you will pronounce upon questions that may reverberate long after the political actors of today have left the stage.

Do not listen to the noise outside the courtroom.

Listen to the Constitution.

Do not favour Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara.

Do not favour the APC.

Do not favour Parliament or the Executive.

We ask only that the Constitution be allowed to speak in its full force and meaning.

For judges, history is sometimes written not only in the judgments they deliver, but in the constitutional principles their judgments leave behind.

Today’s proceedings therefore carry an unusual weight.

Whatever the eventual determination, let it be a determination that strengthens the proposition that in Sierra Leone, constitutional power is not unlimited power.

That Parliament has authority but constitutional authority.

That the Executive has authority but constitutional authority.

That political majorities have authority but constitutional authority.

And that every institution of the Republic remains subject to the supreme law.

Today should also remind every politician of something fundamental:

A constitutional safeguard must remain a safeguard whether it benefits the government or the opposition.

If a principle is right when your opponent is in power, it must remain right when you are in power.

If constitutional procedure matters when you are in opposition, it must matter when you control the majority.

That is how constitutionalism survives.

A young Sierra Leonean who is not yet old enough to vote today may one day depend upon the constitutional principle established today.

That is why this moment deserves seriousness.

That is why it deserves restraint.

And that is why the nation must have confidence in the judicial process.

The Judiciary has approved a live broadcast of the proceedings, reflecting the national importance of the matter while imposing conditions intended to protect the dignity and integrity of the Court.

Let millions therefore watch not with the expectation that the Court must satisfy a political camp, but with the expectation that the Court will faithfully discharge its constitutional responsibility.

This moment should not be reduced to the personality of the man who brought or argued the matter.

The significance of a constitutional case is greater than the individual who stands before the Court.

If the argument is about constitutional supremacy, then the principle must survive even beyond the person advancing it.

That is the true test of constitutional litigation.

Not whether one politician triumphs.

But whether the constitutional principle survives.

And when the courtroom doors close and the legal arguments are eventually reduced to history, let Sierra Leone be able to say that, at a moment when political interests were powerful and national emotions were high, the constitutional question was treated with the seriousness it deserved.

Because there are moments when a nation must look beyond personalities.

Beyond parties.

Beyond elections.

Beyond tomorrow’s headlines.

And remember one simple truth:

Power is temporary, and the office is temporary, but the Constitution is always there

So tomorrow, before we ask who wins, let us ask the more enduring questions:

What happens to the Constitution when power is tested against it ?