Lansana Dumbuya Esq. APC National Secretary General, said the party rejects what it calls the “purported passage” of the Bill and regards the process as a “legislative heist” that undermines constitutional safeguards.
At the centre of the dispute is a ruling by the Speaker of Parliament that a constitutional amendment could be passed by a simple majority.
APC argues that this interpretation directly conflicts with Section 108(2)(b) of Sierra Leone’s 1991 Constitution, which requires a Bill seeking to alter the Constitution to receive the support of not less than two-thirds of all Members of Parliament at both its Second and Third Readings.
With Parliament comprising 149 Members, APC maintains that 100 votes, rather than 96, were required to meet that threshold.
According to the opposition party, Section 108 is a specific constitutional provision and therefore takes precedence over the ordinary parliamentary rule allowing decisions to be made by a majority of Members present and voting.
Adding to APC’s objection is its claim that the Speaker had previously taken a different position on what constitutes “two-thirds of Parliament.”
APC refers to parliamentary proceedings concerning the removal of former Auditor General Lara Taylor-Pearce, during which it says the Speaker explicitly interpreted the two-thirds requirement as applying to all elected Members, rather than only those present and voting.
For APC, reversing that interpretation in the current constitutional amendment process raises questions about consistency and the protection of constitutional safeguards.
The party also argues that Section 91(1), which establishes the general majority rule in Parliament, cannot override Section 108 because it expressly states that the majority rule applies “except as otherwise provided in this Constitution.”
Similarly, APC cites Standing Order 42 and Section 94(2), arguing that parliamentary procedure cannot be used to validate an act that is inconsistent with the Constitution.
Faced with the Speaker’s ruling, APC Members of Parliament withdrew from the proceedings.
According to APC, its MPs neither participated in nor authorised what it describes as the disputed passage of the Bill because doing so could have been interpreted as legitimising a process they considered unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, Parliament proceeded with the vote, with APC stating that the Bill was passed with 96 votes, below its interpretation of the required 100-vote threshold.
Beyond the constitutional argument, APC has raised serious allegations that opposition MPs were offered substantial financial inducements to support the Bill.
In its statement, the party claims the alleged offers originated from what it describes as the country’s highest legislative office.
These are allegations made by APC and have not been independently established as facts. No evidence was presented in the statement to substantiate the claim.
Nevertheless, APC says the allegations deepen concerns about the integrity of the legislative process and warrant scrutiny.
The party also links its concerns to international attention surrounding convicted drug trafficker “Bolle Jos” (Jos Leijdekkers) and his reported presence in Sierra Leone, suggesting that the issue raises broader questions about illicit financial influence within political institutions.
Beyond the current Bill, APC warns that accepting a simple-majority approach could establish a precedent for future constitutional changes.
The party specifically raises concern that provisions affecting presidential tenure and other fundamental aspects of governance could potentially be altered by a simple majority if Section 108’s two-thirds safeguard is not upheld.
For APC, this is therefore not simply a dispute over one piece of legislation. Rather, it is a broader question about whether constitutional protections can be maintained when Parliament seeks to alter provisions governing the state.
APC’s Five-Point Call to Action
Most significantly, page three of APC’s statement sets out five specific demands, moving its position from political condemnation to a direct call for legal and institutional action.
1. Rejection of the Bill
APC says it rejects and condemns the purported passage of the Constitution Amendment Bill 2025 in its entirety, describing it as a “legislative heist, constitutional banditry, and legally void.”
2. Supreme Court Challenge
More importantly, APC says it is proceeding to the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone to challenge what it describes as an unlawful ruling, enforce Section 108, and uphold the supremacy of the Constitution.
This means the dispute could now move from Parliament into the Judiciary, where the constitutional interpretation at the heart of the controversy may ultimately be tested.
3. Assertion of Popular Sovereignty
APC also declares that “the Constitution belongs to the people” and argues that no branch of government stands above it.
The party says it will not accept laws it believes have been imposed through what it describes as fraud, misinterpretation, or bribery.
4. Call to the Nation
In another significant part of its statement, APC calls on Sierra Leoneans, civil society, religious leaders, and the international community to reject what it describes as an act of constitutional theft.
At the same time, it urges citizens to make their voices heard peacefully but firmly while warning against legitimising what it considers illegitimate governance.
5. Demand for Compliance
Finally, APC is demanding that the Speaker and Government suspend the Bill and allow the Supreme Court to determine the constitutional question without delay.
This is arguably the party’s strongest institutional demand because it seeks to halt further action on the legislation until judicial clarification is obtained.
“Justice, Legality and the Will of the People Must Prevail”
Concluding its statement, APC says it “will not stand by while our democracy is dismantled,” insisting that justice, legality, and the will of the people must prevail.
This latest intervention adds further weight to a constitutional dispute that has already drawn criticism from legal and civil society voices over Parliament’s handling of the amendment process.
For Sierra Leone, attention now shifts to whether the Supreme Court will be asked to determine the legality of the voting threshold, the Speaker’s interpretation of Section 108, and the validity of Parliament’s reported passage of the Bill.
At stake is more than the fate of one amendment. It is whether the constitutional safeguards designed to protect Sierra Leone’s supreme law can be altered, interpreted, or bypassed through ordinary parliamentary procedure.