The Institute for Legal Research and Advocacy for Justice (ILRAJ) has expressed serious concern over the circumstances surrounding Parliament’s passage of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025, questioning whether the voting threshold prescribed by the 1991 Constitution was properly applied.
ILRAJ outlined its concerns in a press statement issued in Freetown on Wednesday, 12 August 2026, arguing that Section 108(2)(b) of the Constitution requires certain constitutional amendment bills to secure the support of at least two-thirds of all Members of Parliament during their second and third readings.
The organisation said the constitutional language is clear and should not be treated as a routine procedural matter determined by parliamentary convention or ordinary voting practices.
According to ILRAJ, Section 108(3) imposes a further requirement that constitutional amendments protected under the provision must first be approved through a referendum before receiving presidential assent. It maintained that those safeguards were designed to protect the country’s supreme law from being altered without broad national support.
ILRAJ said it was deeply troubled that Parliament reportedly declared the Bill passed based on a different interpretation of the required voting threshold. It further raised concern over the Speaker’s decision to refer the matter to the Supreme Court only after announcing that the Bill had passed.
The organisation argued that seeking judicial interpretation before the vote would have provided Parliament with clear guidance and reduced the possibility of uncertainty surrounding the validity of the process.
“When stakes are consequential, anticipating complications is better than seeking to remedy them after the fact,” ILRAJ stated, adding that constitutional safeguards should be applied before disputed actions are completed.
The institute also demanded a transparent explanation of reports that representatives of Civil Society Organisations and members of the public observing the parliamentary proceedings were removed from the Well of Parliament because of an alleged security threat.
ILRAJ asked the authorities to disclose the nature of the alleged threat, who conducted the security assessment, the information on which the decision was based and the legal authority under which observers were removed. It also questioned why the public was reportedly excluded when parliamentary business continued.
According to the organisation, Parliament belongs to the people and deliberations on major constitutional reforms should be conducted openly unless specific and credible security concerns justify restrictions.
ILRAJ called on the relevant authorities to provide a full account of the circumstances surrounding the removal of observers and identify which members of the public and civil society were affected.
The institute acknowledged the Supreme Court’s constitutional responsibility to interpret and enforce the country’s laws, noting that questions regarding the Bill had been referred to the Court for determination within the prescribed period.
It, however, cautioned that politically sensitive constitutional and electoral cases have sometimes generated public debate over institutional independence. ILRAJ said the current controversy would test not only Parliament and the Executive but also the Judiciary.
Beyond the passage of the Bill, ILRAJ restated its earlier reservations about some of the proposed amendments. Those include the permanent adoption of proportional representation, the electoral recommendations of the Tripartite Committee and the reduction of the presidential election threshold from 55 per cent to 50 per cent plus one.
The organisation also questioned whether the reforms adequately reflected the recommendations of the Constitutional Review Committee chaired by the late Justice Edmund Cowan.
Despite its concerns, ILRAJ welcomed some provisions in the Bill, particularly the proposed constitutional guarantee of a minimum 30 per cent representation for women in political nominations.
It stressed that constitutional reform should not be judged solely by whether individual provisions favour the Government or the Opposition. Instead, the process must strengthen democracy, command constitutional legitimacy and enjoy broad public confidence.
ILRAJ called on all constitutional authorities to avoid taking irreversible actions while questions surrounding compliance with Section 108 remain unresolved. It also demanded a comprehensive explanation of the alleged security threat and the removal of parliamentary observers.
The organisation urged the Supreme Court, should the matter come before it, to approach the dispute with independence, courage and a firm commitment to constitutional principles.
“The Constitution belongs neither to the Government nor to the Opposition,” ILRAJ stated. “It belongs to the people of Sierra Leone.”
ILRAJ said it would continue monitoring developments, engaging stakeholders and supporting public-interest litigation and advocacy in defence of constitutional supremacy and Sierra Leone’s sovereignty.
