The Campaign for Human Rights and Development International (CHRDI) has called for strict compliance with Sierra Leone’s constitutional amendment procedures, warning that the safeguards contained in the 1991 Constitution cannot be ignored, weakened or replaced by ordinary parliamentary rules.
The organisation made the call in a civic education briefing titled, “The Rules for Amending the Constitution: Why They Cannot Be Bent, Skipped or Repackaged.”
The briefing explains the constitutional amendment process under Sierra Leonean law and highlights relevant court decisions from Kenya and South Africa. It was intended to help lawmakers, voters, journalists, Civil Society Organisations and other citizens understand the legal requirements governing amendments to the country’s supreme law.
CHRDI stated that the Constitution is not an ordinary law and cannot be amended through the same procedures used to pass regular legislation. It cited Section 171(15), which provides that any law inconsistent with the Constitution is void to the extent of that inconsistency.
According to the organisation, Section 108(2) establishes two mandatory requirements that Parliament must satisfy before the Constitution can be lawfully amended.
The first requires the full text of a constitutional amendment Bill to be published in the Government Gazette on at least two occasions before its first reading in Parliament. A minimum of nine days must pass between the first and second publications.
CHRDI said the publication requirement is intended to give citizens adequate time to read the proposed amendments, participate in public discussions and communicate their views to their parliamentary representatives.
The second requirement is that the Bill must receive the support of not less than two-thirds of all Members of Parliament during its Second and Third Readings.
With Sierra Leone’s Parliament comprising 149 members, CHRDI calculates that the required two-thirds threshold is 100 votes. The organisation maintains that the threshold does not change because some lawmakers are absent, abstain or stage a walkout.
It stressed that Section 108(2) refers to two-thirds of all Members of Parliament and not merely two-thirds of members present and voting.
CHRDI also rejected suggestions that Parliament’s Standing Orders could permit clauses in a constitutional amendment Bill to be approved by a simple majority during the Committee of the Whole House stage.
Although Standing Order 44(1) provides a general rule for deciding questions by a simple majority, the organisation cited Section 94(1), which allows Parliament to formulate its Standing Orders only subject to the provisions of the Constitution.
On that basis, CHRDI argued that parliamentary rules remain subordinate to the Constitution and cannot override the special voting requirement governing constitutional amendments.
The civic education briefing further explains that Parliament cannot independently amend every provision of the Constitution.
According to CHRDI, Section 108(3) protects certain entrenched provisions and requires amendments affecting them to be approved through a national referendum after securing the necessary parliamentary support.
Such provisions include Section 108 itself, Chapter III on fundamental human rights and freedoms and sections covering presidential tenure, the composition and life of Parliament, elections, public finance, the Judiciary and certain constitutional commissions and councils.
For amendments affecting entrenched provisions to receive referendum approval, CHRDI said at least half of eligible voters must participate, while at least two-thirds of the valid votes cast must support the proposed changes.
The organisation urged lawmakers and citizens to carefully compare every clause of any proposed amendment Bill with the official text of the 1991 Constitution to determine whether it affects an entrenched provision.
To reinforce its position, CHRDI referred to constitutional decisions from Kenya and South Africa where courts examined compliance with mandatory law-making and constitutional amendment procedures.
The briefing cited the 1995 South African case, Executive Council of the Western Cape Legislature v President of the Republic of South Africa, as demonstrating that Parliament must comply with constitutionally prescribed procedures when making laws.
It also referenced Kenya’s Building Bridges Initiative litigation, which was decided by the country’s Supreme Court in 2022. CHRDI said the case underscored the importance of observing constitutional procedures, including public participation and applicable approval requirements.
The organisation argued that constitutional procedures should not be dismissed as mere technicalities because they form part of the protections established to prevent unlawful or politically convenient changes to the supreme law.
CHRDI consequently called for disputed questions surrounding the interpretation and application of Section 108 to be placed before the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone.
It cited Section 124(1), which gives the Supreme Court original and exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution.
According to the briefing, an aggrieved Member of Parliament or a citizen with the necessary legal standing may seek a binding interpretation from the Court where compliance with the constitutional amendment process is in doubt.
CHRDI said obtaining judicial clarification at an early stage could help prevent a constitutional crisis or a situation in which a disputed amendment is passed, assented to and implemented before subsequently being challenged in court.
The organisation concluded by urging Members of Parliament, journalists, civil-society organisations and citizens to verify whether every constitutional requirement has been satisfied.
It maintained that the Gazette publication rule, the two-thirds parliamentary threshold and the referendum requirement for entrenched provisions are safeguards designed to protect Sierra Leoneans from having the country’s permanent democratic rules changed by a temporary political majority.
“The Constitution belongs to the people of Sierra Leone. It is not the property of any Parliament,” CHRDI stated, calling for constitutional reform to be conducted transparently, lawfully and in full compliance with Section 108.
