The All People’s Congress (APC) has rejected and distanced itself from the reported passage of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which Parliament is reported to have approved on 10 August 2026.
According to the APC National Secretary General Lansana Dumbuya, the party does not recognise the reported passage, arguing that the parliamentary process did not meet the constitutional requirement for amending Sierra Leone’s supreme law.
Owing to this, the dispute centres on a ruling by the Speaker of Parliament , who reportedly ruled that the Bill could be passed by a simple majority, while acknowledging that his decision remained subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court.
Evidently, APC argues that this position conflicts with Section 108(2)(b) of the Constitution, Standing Order 44(3) and an earlier position attributed to the Speaker regarding the voting threshold required for constitutional amendments.
Decidedly, the party maintains that Section 108(2)(b) requires a constitutional amendment Bill 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 calculates that at least 100 affirmative votes would have been required.
The party argues that a general parliamentary rule allowing decisions to be taken by a majority of Members present and voting cannot override a specific constitutional requirement.
APC also points to Section 91(1), which generally provides for decisions by majority vote but begins with the qualification, “Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution.” The party argues that Section 108 constitutes such an exception and should therefore take precedence.
Eventually, the Speaker had previously recognised the applicability of the two-thirds requirement but later reversed that position by allowing the Bill to proceed on a simple majority.
The party considers this reversal a serious constitutional and procedural inconsistency, particularly because the Speaker reportedly acknowledged that the matter could ultimately require interpretation by the Supreme Court.
APC argues that if there was uncertainty over the constitutional requirement, the appropriate step would have been to obtain an interpretation from the Supreme Court before allowing the Bill to proceed, rather than proceeding first and leaving the legality of the process to be determined afterwards.
In conclusion, the controversy now raises a significant constitutional question: Can Parliament validly amend the Constitution through a simple majority when Section 108(2)(b) appears to prescribe a two-thirds majority of all Members of Parliament?
That question could ultimately place the Supreme Court at the centre of a dispute over the interpretation of Parliament’s constitutional powers and the validity of the amendment process.