The main opposition All People’s Congress (APC) has intensified its opposition to the passage of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025, describing the parliamentary process as unconstitutional and announcing plans to seek legal redress before the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone.
In a strongly worded statement dated 13 August 2026 and signed by APC National Secretary General, Lansana Dumbuya Esq., the party rejected the outcome of the parliamentary proceedings of 10 August 2026 and called for the Bill to be suspended pending judicial determination of the constitutional questions surrounding its passage.
The latest statement follows an earlier APC position distancing the party from what it described as the “purported passage” of the Bill. The controversy centres principally on the voting threshold required for amendments to non-entrenched provisions of the 1991 Constitution.
According to the APC, Section 108(2)(b) requires a constitutional amendment Bill to receive the support of at least two-thirds of all elected Members of Parliament at both its Second and Third Readings. The party argued that with 149 Members of Parliament, the required threshold should have been 100 votes.
The APC challenged the Speaker of Parliament’s ruling that the amendment could proceed under the general majority provision contained in Section 91(1) of the Constitution. It maintained that Section 91(1) is qualified by the words “except as otherwise provided in this Constitution” and argued that Section 108 provides the specific procedure applicable to constitutional amendments.
The party further questioned the decision to declare the Bill passed while referring the disputed constitutional interpretation to the Supreme Court for an opinion. According to the APC, the constitutional question should have been settled before the Bill was allowed to proceed.
The Speaker, however, had ruled that the question of whether a non-entrenched constitutional provision could be altered by recourse only to Section 91(1) was of significant public interest and referred the matter to the Supreme Court for an opinion to guide future parliamentary discussions.
Providing background to its position, the APC traced the controversy to developments following the disputed 2023 general elections and the subsequent Agreement for National Unity.
The party said the Tripartite Committee established under that agreement produced 80 recommendations addressing electoral and governance reforms. It specifically highlighted recommendations concerning the appointment of Electoral Commissioners and the electoral system.
The APC also referred to an agreement reached on 20 April 2026, following mediation by the Moral Guarantors, for the establishment of a Joint Technical Committee of lawyers to discuss the Constitution Amendment Bill, 2025.
According to the party, consensus was reached on several issues, while matters including the presidential winning threshold and the choice between Proportional Representation and First-Past-the-Post were left for Parliament to debate and determine.
The opposition maintained, however, that the subsequent parliamentary process failed to comply with what it considers the constitutionally required threshold.
APC Members of Parliament withdrew from the proceedings during consideration of the Bill. The party said the walkout was intended to avoid legitimizing a process it considered constitutionally defective.
The statement also raised serious allegations concerning the political environment surrounding the parliamentary proceedings.
The APC claimed there were reports that financial inducements had been offered to opposition Members of Parliament to support the Bill. The party did not, however, provide publicly verifiable evidence in the statement establishing those allegations as fact.
It further attempted to connect its broader governance concerns to public controversy surrounding convicted Dutch drug trafficker Jos Leijdekkers, also known as “Bolle Jos,” whose reported presence in Sierra Leone has attracted international attention.
Those claims remain allegations advanced by the opposition party and should not be treated as independently established facts without supporting evidence or findings from competent authorities.
The APC warned that allowing constitutional provisions to be amended by a simple parliamentary majority could establish a precedent that, in its view, might weaken safeguards intended to prevent unilateral constitutional changes.
It also referred to rumours of a possible proposal to extend the presidential term from five to seven years. No such proposal was established in the APC statement as an enacted measure and the party presented the issue as part of its warning about what it considers the wider implications of the Speaker’s interpretation.
Outlining its official position, the APC said it completely rejects the passage of the Constitution Amendment Bill, 2025 and considers the process legally invalid.
The party announced that it would pursue legal redress before the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone to challenge the Speaker’s ruling and seek enforcement of its interpretation of Section 108 of the Constitution.
It also reaffirmed what it described as the principle of popular sovereignty, maintaining that constitutional authority ultimately belongs to the people and that all branches of Government must operate within constitutional limits.
The APC called on Sierra Leoneans, Civil Society Organisations, religious leaders and the international community to pay close attention to the constitutional dispute while urging citizens to express their concerns peacefully.
It further demanded that the Speaker of Parliament and the Government suspend further action on the Bill and allow the Supreme Court to determine the disputed constitutional questions.
“The All People’s Congress will not stand by while our democracy is dismantled. Justice, legality and the will of the people must prevail,” the statement concluded.
The dispute has now placed the interpretation of Sections 91 and 108 of the 1991 Constitution at the centre of a major national debate over parliamentary authority, constitutional amendment procedures and the role of the Supreme Court.
With the APC declaring its intention to pursue legal action and the Speaker having separately referred the constitutional question to the Supreme Court for an opinion, attention is expected to shift increasingly to the judiciary for clarification of the legal issues surrounding the amendment process.
