The Sierra Leone President Cannot Hide Behind “Separation of Powers” on Constitutional Matters
By Tab Barbar
The principle of separation of powers is a fundamental pillar of democratic governance. However, it cannot be selectively invoked by the President of Sierra Leone as an excuse to avoid constitutional responsibilities relating to legislation.
Under the 1991 Constitution, the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary have distinct roles. But separation of powers does not mean that these institutions operate in complete isolation from one another. The Constitution deliberately creates a system of checks and balances, in which each branch has specific responsibilities and, in certain circumstances, interacts with the others.
Parliament is vested with legislative authority and is responsible for making laws. The President, however, is not completely detached from the legislative process. The Constitution provides the President with specific responsibilities concerning Bills passed by Parliament, including the constitutional procedures surrounding assent and the return of legislation to Parliament.
More importantly, the Constitution itself makes clear that the President has responsibilities concerning constitutional matters relating to legislation. Therefore, it would be constitutionally problematic for the President to argue that every issue concerning legislation is exclusively a matter for Parliament and that the Executive has no responsibility because of separation of powers.
This distinction is particularly important when the legislation in question seeks to amend the Constitution. Constitutional amendments are not ordinary legislation. They are governed by specific constitutional requirements, including the procedures and parliamentary thresholds prescribed by Section 108 of the 1991 Constitution. Those requirements are binding on everyone.
Neither the President nor Parliament has the authority to disregard constitutional procedures simply because doing so may be politically convenient. The Constitution is the supreme law of Sierra Leone, and every institution of government is subject to it.
At the same time, presidential responsibility must not be confused with presidential supremacy. The President cannot claim the authority to determine constitutional questions unilaterally. Where a serious constitutional dispute arises, the appropriate constitutional mechanisms must be followed, including judicial interpretation where necessary.
That is precisely why the argument of “separation of powers” cannot be used as a blanket defence. Separation of powers protects institutions from unconstitutional interference by one another, but it does not provide immunity from constitutional accountability.
If Parliament passes legislation that raises serious constitutional questions, those questions cannot simply be dismissed as Parliament’s internal affair. Likewise, if the Executive takes a position on the constitutionality of legislation, that position must itself be grounded in the Constitution.
The President, as the head of the Executive, has a constitutional duty to respect, protect, and uphold the Constitution. That responsibility cannot disappear whenever constitutional questions become politically difficult or controversial.
Sierra Leone therefore needs a careful distinction between respect for institutional independence and avoidance of constitutional responsibility. Parliament must be allowed to perform its legislative functions without improper executive interference. At the same time, the President cannot invoke separation of powers to distance the presidency from constitutional responsibilities that the Constitution expressly places upon it.
Ultimately, the Constitution—not the President, Parliament, or any political party—is the supreme authority. Political convenience cannot override constitutional requirements, and no branch of government can place itself beyond constitutional scrutiny.
The real meaning of separation of powers is not that government institutions should refuse to engage with one another. It is that each institution must exercise its powers within the limits established by the Constitution.
For Sierra Leone, that principle should be non-negotiable. When constitutional matters concerning legislation arise, the answer must come from the Constitution itself. Separation of powers should never become a political shield for avoiding constitutional responsibility.
Leave a Reply