A heated exchange took place in Freetown on Tuesday between the Supreme Court and Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara, the lead attorney for the opposition All People’s Congress (APC). The discussion centered on the 2025 Constitutional Amendment Bill, which has sparked significant controversy. Chief Justice Komba Kamanda and Kamara clashed over preliminary objections raised by the APC legal team concerning the Bill’s passage in Parliament. The objections primarily focused on procedural issues and technicalities related to Rule 92.
The Chief Justice dismissed Kamara’s objections, allowing the court to proceed with considering applications to consolidate various related constitutional cases linked to the Bill. This legal challenge revolves around the manner in which the Bill, affecting presidential election thresholds and proportional representation, was passed. President Julius Maada Bio referred the matter to the Supreme Court under Section 122(1) of the 1991 Constitution instead of signing it. This move has led to parallel lawsuits filed by the APC and several MPs.
Kamara’s procedural objections aimed to challenge whether the Attorney-General’s application to consolidate the cases met necessary preliminary requirements under Supreme Court Rules. During the hearing, Justice Kamanda pressed him on the legal basis for his objections. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the main constitutional issues surrounding Sections 91 and 108 of the Bill. The court will continue discussions on 8 October 2026 regarding the consolidation of the cases.
The absence of the Speaker of Parliament, Rt. Hon. Segepoh Solomon Thomas, during the proceedings led to public speculation. His lawyer attributed the absence to illness, while Parliament later clarified he was on official duty. This contradiction raised questions about communication and transparency in a politically charged environment. The Speaker's absence was notable given the significance of the case and the role of Parliament in the Bill's passage.
The Supreme Court also allowed the Institute for Legal Research and Advocacy for Justice (ILRAJ) to act as amicus curiae, providing independent legal insight into the proceedings. This development adds an additional layer of scrutiny to the case, as the Institute will offer expert analysis on the constitutional implications of the Bill. The involvement of ILRAJ is seen as a positive step towards ensuring that the court's decision is well-informed.
As the first day of the hearing concluded, Sierra Leoneans were left awaiting answers to vital constitutional questions. The disputes are deeply intertwined with issues of institutional credibility and public confidence. The Supreme Court's decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for the country's electoral processes and governance. The court's ruling will likely be closely watched by various stakeholders, including politicians, civil society groups, and the general public.
The case has significant implications for Sierra Leone's democracy, particularly with regards to the balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The Supreme Court's decision will set a precedent for future cases and may influence the trajectory of the country's political landscape. As the court continues to deliberate, the nation remains attentive to the unfolding events, hoping for a resolution that upholds the principles of justice and the rule of law.
Key points
- The Supreme Court has dismissed the APC's procedural objections to the 2025 Constitutional Amendment Bill.
- The court will continue discussions on 8 October 2026 regarding the consolidation of the cases.
- The Institute for Legal Research and Advocacy for Justice (ILRAJ) has been allowed to provide independent legal insight into the proceedings.
