𝐆𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐖𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐫
𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐓𝐔𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐌𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐁𝐄 𝐀 𝐂𝐀𝐒𝐔𝐀𝐋𝐓𝐘 𝐎𝐅 𝐏𝐎𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐋 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐕𝐄𝐍𝐈𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄
𝐁𝐲 𝐒𝐚𝐲𝐨𝐡 𝐊𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐚 (𝟎𝟕𝟕𝟔𝟐𝟐𝟓𝟎𝟏)
President Julius Maada Bio’s decision to withhold assent to the controversial Constitutional Amendment Bill and refer the constitutional questions surrounding its passage to the Supreme Court has brought the matter to the doorstep of the country’s highest court.
The Supreme Court is now scheduled to hear the matter on 7th October 2026.
At face value, the President’s decision to seek judicial clarification may appear to be a welcome retreat from the brink. But Sierra Leoneans would be justified in asking a much bigger question: Is this genuinely a constitutional safeguard, or could the judicial process itself become the final battleground over a deeply contested political project? This question must not be dismissed as paranoia. Nor should it be answered by political rhetoric.
The controversy is rooted in the manner in which Parliament handled the Bill on 10th August 2026. Section 108(2)(b) of the 1991 Constitution provides that a Bill seeking to alter the Constitution must receive the votes of not less than two-thirds of Members of Parliament at its second and third readings.
Yet the Speaker ruled that the Bill could proceed on the basis of a simple majority, after which opposition MPs walked out.
The Bill was subsequently declared passed. The Speaker himself then referred a related constitutional question to the Supreme Court, acknowledging the importance of obtaining judicial guidance.
That sequence of events has created the constitutional dilemma now before the Court.
And this is where the President’s latest action deserves both recognition and scrutiny. If the Executive genuinely believes that the constitutional process must be beyond doubt, then the Supreme Court must be given absolute institutional space to determine the matter according to the Constitution and the law—not according to political convenience, governmental expectation or partisan pressure.
There must be no attempt, overt or covert, to anticipate the Court’s decision, influence its reasoning or manufacture an atmosphere in which a particular outcome becomes politically inevitable.
Equally important, Sierra Leoneans must resist the temptation to conclude in advance that the judges will be compromised.
There are already two competing public anxieties. One fears that the Supreme Court could become a constitutional rubber stamp for a decision already taken elsewhere. The other believes that the judges will rise above political considerations and defend the constitutional order. Neither proposition should be treated as established fact.
The judges must be judged by what they do, not by what anyone expects them to do.
The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over matters concerning the interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution. That responsibility becomes particularly consequential when the dispute concerns the very procedure by which the nation’s supreme law is being altered. The Court therefore has an extraordinary opportunity—not to serve the interests of the SLPP, the APC, President Bio, Parliament, the opposition, civil society or any other political constituency—but to serve the Constitution itself. And that is precisely why the October 7 proceedings cannot be reduced to another episode in Sierra Leone’s increasingly bitter political contest. This is bigger than President Bio. It is bigger than the SLPP. It is bigger than the APC.
The question is whether constitutional rules can be bent, reinterpreted or retrospectively sanitised when political circumstances make strict adherence inconvenient.
A Constitution is not merely a document for peaceful times. Its real value is tested when those in power have something important to gain from interpreting it one way, while those outside power have something equally important to lose.
That is why the Supreme Court’s handling of this matter must be transparent, rigorous and anchored unmistakably in constitutional text, precedent and law.
If the Court finds that the parliamentary process complied with the Constitution, let that determination be clearly explained.
If it finds that the process fell short of the constitutional threshold, let it say so without fear or favour.
What Sierra Leone cannot afford is an outcome that leaves a substantial section of the population believing that the Constitution was made to fit a political decision that had already been made.
The President’s decision to seek judicial interpretation can therefore become either a meaningful constitutional checkpoint or merely another stage in the controversy.
The difference will be determined by what happens next.
The greatest danger is not that the Supreme Court reaches a decision with which one political camp disagrees. The greater danger is for Sierra Leone to emerge from this episode with a Supreme Court whose constitutional authority is diminished because citizens believe that political power had already predetermined the destination.
That is why President Bio, the SLPP, the opposition, Parliament, civil society and, above all, the Executive must resist every temptation to interfere with, intimidate, manipulate or politically condition the judicial process.
In that case, they should let the judges judge; let the Constitution speak and let Sierra Leone accept the consequence of a genuinely independent constitutional determination.
Because once the political convenience of today is allowed to override the constitutional safeguards of tomorrow, no government—present or future—can be certain that those safeguards will still be there when it needs them most.
Leave a Reply