The main opposition All Peoples Congress (APC) has rejected and distanced itself from what it described as the “purported passage” of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025, following its consideration by Parliament on Monday, 10 August 2026.
In a Press Release dated Tuesday, 11 August 2026 and signed by APC National Secretary General Lansana Dumbuya Esq., the party strongly condemned the procedure adopted in passing the Bill, arguing that the required constitutional voting threshold was not met.
According to the APC, the Speaker of Parliament ruled that the Bill had been passed by a simple majority while acknowledging that his decision remained subject to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions.
The party maintained that the ruling was inconsistent with Section 108(2)(b) of the 1991 Constitution, Standing Order 44(3) and the Speaker’s previously stated position on the voting threshold required for constitutional amendments.
“If the Speaker considered the constitutional position uncertain and requiring interpretation by the Supreme Court, the prudent and constitutionally responsible course would have been to obtain that interpretation before ruling on the threshold and allowing the Bill to proceed,” the APC stated.
The opposition party argued that Parliament should not alter the Constitution and leave questions surrounding the legality of the procedure to be determined afterwards.
Citing Section 108(2)(b), the APC said a Bill seeking to amend the Constitution should not be passed at its second and third readings unless it receives the support of at least two-thirds of all Members of Parliament.
The party calculated that, with 149 Members of Parliament, at least 100 affirmative votes were required. It claimed that only 96 Members supported the Bill and therefore insisted that the constitutional threshold had not been satisfied.
The APC further argued that the Speaker had previously recognized the applicability of the two-thirds requirement before reversing his position and declaring the Bill passed by a simple majority.
According to the party, that decision created what it described as a serious constitutional and procedural inconsistency. It maintained that a mandatory constitutional safeguard could not be displaced by a ruling from the Chair, particularly when the ruling itself was awaiting judicial interpretation.
Addressing the application of Section 91(1) of the Constitution, which generally permits questions before Parliament to be determined by a majority of members present and voting, the APC argued that the provision contains the qualification: “Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution.”
The party said Section 108 provides such an exception because it specifically governs constitutional amendments and should therefore take precedence over the general voting rule.
The APC also maintained that the two-thirds requirement applies to every substantive decision affecting the constitutional text, including the Committee Stage, where Parliament inserts, deletes, substitutes or amends provisions intended to become part of the Constitution.
It warned that allowing such clauses to be adopted by a simple majority could result in constitutional changes that had not independently secured the required level of parliamentary support.
The party also cited Section 171, which declares the Constitution the supreme law of Sierra Leone, arguing that neither ordinary parliamentary procedures nor a ruling by the Speaker could override or reduce an expressly prescribed constitutional voting threshold.
Explaining the opposition lawmakers’ decision to leave the Chamber, the APC said its Members of Parliament withdrew after the Speaker delivered a ruling that allegedly departed from Section 108 and his earlier position.
The party said its lawmakers chose not to legitimize the process, adding that they neither authorized nor participated in what it described as the purported passage of the Bill.
The APC called on the Government and Parliament to ensure strict compliance with the Constitution and insisted that no constitutional amendment should be treated as valid while the prescribed voting threshold remains disputed and subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court.
“No Government, political party, Speaker or Parliament stands above the Constitution,” the party declared.
