By James Tamba Lebbie
At a time when Sierra Leone’s constitutional order is once again at the centre of national discussion, Dr. Ibrahim Bangura has adopted a position that is notable for its measured tone, institutional focus and emphasis on constitutional prudence. His statement on the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025 does not merely register political opposition to a controversial legislative process; it seeks to frame the debate within the broader principles of constitutionalism, democratic governance, institutional integrity and the long-term interests of the Republic.
The significance of Dr. Bangura’s intervention lies partly in what it does not do. Rather than allowing a matter of such national consequence to be reduced to partisan rhetoric, he places emphasis on due process and the proper functioning of constitutional institutions. His acknowledgement of the Speaker’s decision to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion demonstrates an appreciation that questions concerning the interpretation and application of the Constitution require authoritative legal consideration.
His call for the Supreme Court process to proceed without unnecessary delay is particularly important. Constitutional uncertainty can create uncertainty within the political system itself. Where legitimate questions have arisen about the process through which fundamental changes to the supreme law are being pursued, an authoritative judicial interpretation can provide clarity, strengthen institutional confidence and establish a sound basis for subsequent decisions.
Dr. Bangura’s position that further action on the recently passed constitutional amendment should be suspended pending judicial consideration also reflects a precautionary approach. It is not necessarily an argument against constitutional reform itself. Rather, it is an argument that constitutional reform must be undertaken in a manner that leaves no reasonable doubt about its legality, legitimacy and procedural integrity. In matters involving the supreme law of the land, caution should not be interpreted as obstruction; it can equally be understood as responsible statesmanship.
This distinction is central to understanding his intervention. Dr. Bangura does not present constitutional reform as inherently undesirable. Instead, he argues that amendments to the Constitution are fundamentally different from ordinary legislative measures because they can reshape the institutional architecture of the state and influence the relationship between citizens and government for generations.
Constitutions are not merely instruments through which governments exercise power. They are also mechanisms for limiting power, protecting rights, establishing institutions and providing peaceful means for resolving political disagreements. Consequently, any attempt to alter the constitutional framework must be approached with a level of seriousness proportionate to its consequences.
It is against this background that Dr. Bangura’s appeal for broad stakeholder consultation assumes particular significance. His call for engagement with the APC, other political stakeholders, civil society organisations, legal experts and other national actors reflects the principle that constitutional legitimacy should extend beyond the numerical strength of a particular political majority.
In a democracy, parliamentary majorities are legitimate and necessary. However, constitutional questions often transcend the immediate interests of governments and opposition parties. The Constitution belongs to the Republic and, ultimately, to its people. Its amendment should therefore command a level of national confidence that goes beyond the political calculations of the moment.
Dr. Bangura’s call for the President to withhold assent while the constitutional questions are being considered is therefore presented within a broader framework of institutional restraint. His argument is essentially that where significant constitutional questions remain unresolved, it is prudent to avoid taking irreversible steps before the appropriate constitutional processes have been exhausted.
Such an approach is consistent with the principle that democratic institutions are strongest when they exercise power with restraint. The existence of constitutional authority does not necessarily require that every available power be exercised immediately. Responsible leadership sometimes involves waiting for greater clarity, listening to competing perspectives and allowing institutions established by the Constitution to perform their respective functions.
Equally important is Dr. Bangura’s appeal to members and supporters of the All People’s Congress. While affirming his party’s position, he cautions against allowing the constitutional debate to become an excuse for disorder or unnecessary confrontation. His emphasis on unity, calm, discipline and constructive engagement suggests an attempt to reconcile firm political advocacy with respect for democratic institutions.
That is particularly relevant in an environment where constitutional disputes can easily become politically polarising. Opposition to a government position does not have to translate into hostility towards the state, just as support for a government initiative should not require unquestioning acceptance of every aspect of the process through which it is pursued.
Dr. Bangura’s statement therefore advances a broader conception of political leadership; one in which defending a political position and protecting national institutions are not mutually exclusive responsibilities.
Perhaps the most mature element of his argument is his insistence that the APC itself must approach the matter from the perspective of the national interest. His assertion that “our party is greater than any individual, and the future of Sierra Leone is greater than any political party” provides an important principle for political discourse. It recognises that political parties are instruments of democratic participation, but the Republic itself must remain the ultimate object of political responsibility.
This principle also speaks to Dr. Bangura’s emerging political identity. His intervention seeks to position him not simply as an aspirant seeking political office, but as a political actor concerned with the institutional conditions under which political power is exercised. Whether one agrees with every aspect of his position or not, the emphasis on constitutional safeguards, judicial clarification, consultation and institutional restraint represents a deliberative approach to political engagement.
There is also a wider lesson for Sierra Leone’s democratic development. Constitutional stability does not mean that a Constitution should never change. Societies evolve, institutions require improvement and constitutional frameworks may legitimately need reform. The challenge is ensuring that such reform is undertaken through processes that are transparent, lawful, inclusive and sufficiently legitimate to command public confidence.
Constitutional reform should therefore not be viewed simply through the lens of who benefits politically from a particular amendment. The more important question is whether the reform strengthens the democratic system that will remain after the political actors of today have left the stage.
This is why Dr. Bangura’s insistence on considering not only what may be possible today but also what will best serve the country tomorrow is arguably the central theme of his intervention. It shifts the debate from immediate political advantage to institutional legacy.
For a developing democracy such as Sierra Leone, that distinction matters enormously. Political parties will change, governments will come and go, leaders will rise and retire, and political majorities will inevitably shift. The institutions of the Republic, however, must endure. A constitutional framework that is perceived as fair, legitimate and resistant to partisan manipulation provides a foundation upon which successive generations can build.
Dr. Ibrahim Bangura’s statement should therefore be understood as an appeal for constitutional prudence rather than political confrontation. It calls for judicial clarification, Executive restraint, responsible parliamentary and political engagement, and broader national consultation.
Ultimately, the strength of a democracy is tested not only when institutions are functioning smoothly, but also when difficult constitutional and political questions arise. At such moments, leadership requires more than political conviction. It requires judgment, restraint, respect for institutions and the ability to distinguish between what may advance a political interest in the present and what may protect the national interest in the long term.
Dr. Bangura’s intervention places him firmly within that conversation. Its central message is that Sierra Leone’s Constitution should not be treated merely as an instrument of political convenience, but as the enduring foundation of the Republic.
Whatever disagreements may exist over the proposed amendments, the country’s collective responsibility is to ensure that the constitutional process remains lawful, credible, inclusive and worthy of public confidence.
In the final analysis, the question before Sierra Leone is larger than any individual politician, political party or parliamentary majority. It is about the kind of constitutional democracy the country wishes to leave to future generations. And because that inheritance belongs to everyone and not only to those who exercise power today, constitutional change demands patience, wisdom, consultation and the highest possible standard of national responsibility.
About the author:
James Tamba Lebbie is, among other endeavours, a seasoned journalist, a former media regulator, and a public relations and communications consultant. He currently teaches at the Faculty of Communication, Media and Information Studies at Fourah Bay College, University of Sierra Leone.