Two Members of Parliament from the main opposition All People’s Congress (APC), Hon. Mohamed Bangura and Hon. Alfred Ayodele Thompson, remained in the Chamber on Monday, August 10, 2026, as their fellow APC lawmakers staged a walkout during proceedings on the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025.

The decision by the two parliamentarians not to join their colleagues immediately attracted political attention, highlighting differences within the opposition over how its MPs should respond to contentious constitutional and governance matters.

While other APC lawmakers left the Chamber to demonstrate their objection to the constitutional amendment process, Hon. Mohamed Bangura and Hon. Alfred Ayodele Thompson stayed behind and continued participating in the parliamentary proceedings.

Their decision was particularly significant because both MPs have previously differed with their party over its positions and approaches to certain political and governance issues.

The development is expected to renew debate over party discipline and the extent to which elected parliamentarians should follow collective party decisions when considering major national legislation.

For supporters of strict party discipline, remaining in the Chamber could be viewed as a departure from the collective position adopted by the APC parliamentary caucus. Others may argue that MPs have an individual responsibility to exercise their judgment and participate in parliamentary proceedings, particularly when legislation with far-reaching national consequences is under consideration.

The walkout came against the backdrop of intense political debate over the Constitutional Amendment Bill and disagreements surrounding some of its provisions and the procedure for approving them.

Following the action, Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, Hon. Abdul Kargbo, commended opposition lawmakers for what he described as their courage and commitment to defending the Constitution.

Hon. Abdul Kargbo described the occasion as one of the most important opportunities MPs have had to stand for the people and defend Sierra Leone’s supreme law.

“To all Honourable Members of Parliament, particularly Members on the Opposition side, I want to commend you for demonstrating that you stand with the people and that you stand for the Constitution,” he stated.

According to the Opposition Leader, democracy comes with challenges, but elected representatives must be prepared to take difficult positions when they believe the interests of citizens and constitutional governance are at stake.

He argued that where the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority for an amendment, parliamentarians have a responsibility to ensure that such a requirement is respected.

Hon. Abdul Kargbo also rejected suggestions that the opposition’s action amounted to a boycott of Parliament, describing it instead as a principled response to what the opposition believed was a procedurally unconstitutional attempt to amend the Constitution.

“We did not boycott Parliament,” he stressed, maintaining that the opposition acted to defend the integrity of Parliament and the Constitution from which the institution derives its authority.

He thanked MPs who supported the opposition’s position and called for continued unity when Parliament resumes its work.

The controversy surrounding the parliamentary proceedings comes just a day after the APC publicly outlined its position on the proposed constitutional reforms.

In a statement dated August 9, 2026 and signed by APC National Secretary General Lansana Dumbuya, Esq., the party made clear that it was not opposed to constitutional reform or rejecting the Amendment Bill in its entirety.

Instead, the APC expressed support for several provisions it believes could strengthen democracy, expand political participation and promote greater inclusion.

Among them is the proposed constitutional guarantee of at least 30 percent representation for women in political nominations. The APC said women constitute a significant proportion of Sierra Leone’s population and have contributed immensely to the country’s political, social and economic development.

The party also backed proposals to expand opportunities for Sierra Leoneans holding dual citizenship by allowing them to contest parliamentary elections and qualify for ministerial and other public appointments, subject to applicable constitutional and legal requirements.

However, it supports retaining the existing citizenship requirements for the offices of President and Vice-President.

Despite backing those reforms, the APC maintained strong opposition to replacing constituency-based First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) elections with Proportional Representation as the country’s regular electoral system.

The party argued that FPTP maintains a direct relationship between constituents and their elected representatives, allowing communities to identify and hold their MPs accountable.

It also cited positions expressed by Paramount Chiefs, Civil Society Organisations, religious leaders and citizens during constitutional consultations as supporting constituency-based representation.

The APC similarly called for retention of the existing 55 percent threshold required for a presidential candidate to win an election.

According to the opposition party, the threshold encourages presidential candidates to build support beyond their traditional political strongholds and promotes broader national consensus.

Where no candidate reaches 55 percent in the first round, the APC argued, parties and candidates must engage other communities, negotiate alliances and broaden their national appeal ahead of a runoff.

The party therefore appealed to lawmakers from both the APC and governing Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) to consider the long-term national implications of constitutional amendments rather than temporary partisan interests.

It maintained that constitutional reform should not be reduced to an APC-versus-SLPP political contest, stressing that the Constitution ultimately belongs to the people of Sierra Leone.

Against that backdrop, Monday’s walkout and the decision of Hon. Mohamed Bangura and Hon. Alfred Ayodele Thompson to remain in the Chamber have introduced another dimension to the debate, raising questions about party unity, parliamentary independence and the responsibilities of individual MPs during major constitutional decisions.

The APC has reaffirmed its support for constitutional reform, increased women’s representation, expanded opportunities for dual citizens and stronger democratic institutions, while maintaining its demand for FPTP elections and the 55 percent presidential threshold.

“Country first. Democracy always. The people must have the final say,” the APC statement concluded.

By Alfred Kanu, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

Perhaps the most human moment in President Bio’s address came when he asked Parliament to imagine how today’s decision might look to people who have not yet been born. “The decision before you will not end with the vote. It will be remembered by generations yet unborn,” he told lawmakers, before asking them to consider whether their daughters would inherit a Constitution “that recognises their equal right to lead”, whether young people would have a meaningful voice, and whether citizens would continue to believe that Parliament could rise above political division.

For a country whose recent political history has been written through coups, civil war, peace agreements, elections and hard-won democratic transitions, President Julius Maada Bio’s address to Parliament on Sunday, 9 August 2026, carried a weight that went beyond the immediate vote on the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill 2025.

Speaking as President but also, in his words, “as a fellow citizen who has journeyed with this nation through some of its darkest and most defining moments,” Bio placed the proposed reforms within a personal and national journey that stretches back three decades. In 1996, as head of the National Provisional Ruling Council, then Rtd. Brig. General Julius Maada Bio oversaw the country’s return to civilian rule after years of military government, with the late Dr Ahmad Tejan Kabbah winning the March 1996 presidential election.

That democratic opening was soon interrupted by another coup in 1997, before the country eventually travelled the difficult road to the Lomé Peace Agreement of July 1999 and the formal end of the civil war in January 2002. It was against that history that President Bio described the proposed amendment as “a historic piece of legislation that represents the culmination of decades of national dialogue”, recalling that the Lomé Agreement itself called for constitutional review.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of 2004 subsequently reinforced the need for constitutional reform, recommending a broad, participatory process capable of laying the foundations for a more open and democratic society. The significance of the moment, therefore, lies not simply in changing sections of a 1991 Constitution, but in asking whether a nation that once struggled to transfer power without violence can continue to make political change through institutions, dialogue and law.

That journey has been neither linear nor perfect. After the war, Sierra Leone gradually built one of West Africa’s more durable post-conflict electoral traditions. The 2002 elections helped consolidate peace, the 2007 election produced the country’s first peaceful transfer of presidential power from one political party to another after the war, and power changed hands again in 2018 when Bio defeated the APC’s Samura Kamara, succeeding term-limited President Ernest Bai Koroma.

Yet the story also contains warnings. Political rivalry, disputed elections, violence, institutional mistrust and deepening ethno-regional divisions have repeatedly tested the country’s democratic foundations. International IDEA’s recent assessment describes the post-war period as Sierra Leone’s longest sustained spell of democracy since independence, but also warns that electoral democracy faces challenges from “the intensification of ethno-regional political divisions and a winner-takes-all approach to governance.”

The 2023 elections, in which Bio was declared the winner with 56 per cent of the presidential vote, demonstrated both the resilience and vulnerability of that democratic journey: turnout remained high, but international and domestic observers raised concerns about transparency in the counting process and called for reforms to restore confidence. It is against this imperfect history that the President’s appeal for constitutional change must be understood.

“We did not abandon that work, nor did we seek to begin the process anew,” he said of the work inherited from previous administrations, pointing to the Justice Edmond Cowan Constitutional Review Committee’s extraordinary national consultation between 2013 and 2017, which involved more than 10,000 public consultations, 133 stakeholder engagements, 150 position papers, 20,000 hours of radio programming and more than 70,000 consultation forms.

The proposed reforms now seek, among other things, proportional representation and a constitutional minimum of 30 per cent women in political nominations, giving particular relevance to a country where women held only about 13 per cent of parliamentary seats in 2022 before the subsequent gender reforms.

Perhaps the most human moment in President Bio’s address came when he asked Parliament to imagine how today’s decision might look to people who have not yet been born. “The decision before you will not end with the vote. It will be remembered by generations yet unborn,” he told lawmakers, before asking them to consider whether their daughters would inherit a Constitution “that recognises their equal right to lead”, whether young people would have a meaningful voice, and whether citizens would continue to believe that Parliament could rise above political division.

His most striking appeal was also his simplest: “Do not vote for me. Do not vote for this Government. Do not vote for any political party. Vote for Sierra Leone.” That appeal should not be mistaken for an argument that every provision of the Bill is beyond criticism. Constitutional reform is too consequential for unquestioning loyalty, and civil society, legal experts, and human rights institutions have continued to scrutinise the proposals. In July 2026, the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone submitted recommendations to Parliament on electoral justice, inclusion, the rule of law, and human rights.

The President himself acknowledged that constitutional reform requires Parliament to safeguard not merely the text but “its meaning, strengthen its application, and ensure that it continues to serve the people of Sierra Leone.” Perhaps that is the hopeful lesson in this moment: Sierra Leone’s democratic story is still unfinished. The generation that witnessed military rule, war and political uncertainty has lived long enough to see peaceful transfers of power, stronger institutions, wider participation and women claiming greater space in public life.

The generation now entering adulthood deserves something even better. If Parliament can deliberate honestly, listen carefully, and put the country above party, then this moment may eventually be remembered not simply as another constitutional amendment, but as another quiet turning point in Sierra Leone’s long journey from the politics of survival toward the politics of inclusion, accountability, and democratic confidence.

“May history record,” President Bio concluded, “that, at this critical hour, Parliament chose country over division, progress over stagnation, and a stronger democracy for generations to come.”

Look carefully at this photograph.

Female parliamentarians from opposing political camps—standing together.

Not fighting.

Not insulting one another.

Not behaving as though political disagreement means national hatred.

Standing together.

That image may ultimately become one of the most powerful symbols of the Julius Maada Bio presidency.

For decades, Sierra Leone’s politics has too often been poisoned by division, tribal sentiment and partisan hostility. President Bio’s greatest contribution may be that he has demonstrated that political opponents can disagree without becoming enemies of the nation.

That is why I call him the Father of Democracy.

That is why I call him the Prince of Peace.

And that is why I believe his greatest achievement may ultimately be national unity.

Even America’s President, Donald Trump, publicly acknowledged President Bio at the FII PRIORITY Summit in Miami:

“I also want to thank the President of Sierra Leone, Julius Maada Bio. I love that name. Thank you. It’s a great honor to have you.”

Some will dismiss the significance.

I won’t.

For a Sierra Leonean President to stand among world leaders and receive that recognition on an international stage is a moment worth remembering.

But here is the uncomfortable truth:

The greatest threat to Sierra Leone has never been another political party. It has been our inability to put Sierra Leone above the party.

APC cannot be bigger than Sierra Leone.

SLPP cannot be bigger than Sierra Leone.

No politician is bigger than Sierra Leone.

SIERRA LEONE MUST COME FIRST.

And if the sight of our female parliamentarians standing together represents even the beginning of that transformation, then we should celebrate it.

Because nations are not destroyed only by wars.

Sometimes they are destroyed by citizens who forget that they belong to the same country.

President Bio’s presidency should therefore be judged not only by what he built, but by whether he helped change the political culture of the nation.

And history—not Facebook arguments, not partisan propaganda, not today’s political noise—will eventually deliver the verdict.

My verdict is already clear.

I believe history will remember Julius Maada Bio as the best President Sierra Leone has ever had.

Not because he was perfect.

But because, in my view, he understood that the ultimate victory is not defeating your political opponent—it is uniting your country.

Father of Democracy.

Prince of Peace.

Architect of National Unity.

President Julius Maada Bio.

Love him or disagree with him—but history will be the final judge.

And I believe history will be kind to him.

Sierra Leone First.

Speaker of Parliament, the Right Honourable Segepoh Solomon Thomas, has defended the constitutional executive powers of the President, arguing that Parliament should not enact laws that restrict the authority of the country’s highest office.

Speaking during the Committee Stage debate on the Constitutional Amendment Bill 2025 on Wednesday, Speaker Segepoh Solomon Thomas told lawmakers that the President remains the supreme Head of State and Government and that the Constitution should reflect the full authority attached to the office.

“Nobody should make law to limit the powers of the President,” Speaker Segepoh Solomon Thomas said, stressing that the President’s constitutional executive authority should not be restricted.

The Speaker reminded Members of Parliament that any political party could assume power and benefit from the constitutional provisions currently being debated. He therefore urged lawmakers to approach the proposed amendments from a national perspective rather than allowing partisan interests to influence their decisions.

“What we do today will apply to whoever is in office tomorrow. We must legislate for the institution, not for individuals,” Speaker Segepoh Solomon Thomas remarked.

His intervention came as Members of Parliament continued deliberations on proposed amendments that could significantly reshape Sierra Leone’s constitutional and electoral framework.

The debate has generated considerable public interest, with discussions focusing on presidential authority, electoral arrangements, democratic representation and the balance of power among the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary.

Supporters of the proposed constitutional changes have argued that the reform process provides an opportunity to address weaknesses in the existing legal framework, improve governance and strengthen the country’s democratic institutions.

However, critics have expressed concern that some of the proposed changes could further concentrate power in the Presidency. They have called for reforms that strengthen accountability, political inclusion, institutional independence and the system of checks and balances.

Commenting on the Speaker’s position, Basita Michael, Founder and Governing Officer of the Institute for Legal Research and Advocacy for Justice, said the statement raised important questions about the overall direction of Sierra Leone’s constitutional reform process.

Basita Michael acknowledged that Speaker Segepoh Solomon Thomas and other contributors to the debate were entitled to express their constitutional views. She nevertheless argued that citizens expect the reform process to strengthen the balance of power among the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary.

“At a time when Sierra Leone is debating constitutional reform, citizens naturally expect proposals that strengthen checks and balances between the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, not interventions that appear to preserve or expand presidential power,” she stated.

Basita Michael also referred to a proposal attributed to Dr. Emmanuel Saffa Abdulai to extend the presidential term to seven years. She maintained that proposals supporting stronger executive authority or longer presidential tenure should be accompanied by measures to increase accountability.

“When proposals consistently point towards stronger executive authority or longer presidential tenure without corresponding increases in accountability, an important constitutional question arises,” she said.

Basita Michael questioned whether the reform process was intended to limit the concentration of power, improve accountability and strengthen checks and balances or whether it would ultimately produce a Constitution that gives greater protection to the Presidency than to the Republic.

The Constitutional Amendment Bill 2025 remains under parliamentary scrutiny, with lawmakers expected to examine its provisions before taking final decisions on the proposed reforms.