By Mohamed J Massaquoi

The opposition All People’s Congress (APC) has strongly rejected the passage of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2025, arguing that the parliamentary process breached the constitutional threshold required for amendments to the country’s supreme law, while announcing they are headed to court to challenge it.

The party said it did not participate in what it described as the “purported passage” of the bill on 10 August 2026, after its members of parliament withdrew from the proceedings following the speaker’s ruling that the legislation could be passed by a simple majority.

According to them, the speaker acknowledged that his ruling remained subject to interpretation by the supreme court, a position they said puts a question mark on the constitutionality of the parliamentary process.

The party maintains that section 108(2)(b) of the 1991 Constitution 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 the second and third readings.

With parliament comprising 149 members, the APC argues that at least 100 affirmative votes were required. It therefore disputes the validity of the reported approval of the bill by 96 members comprising ruling party (SLPP) lawmakers and paramount chief members of parliament (PCMPs).

Further, the APC argues that the speaker’s decision to apply a simple-majority threshold was inconsistent with section 108(2)(b), standing order 44(3), and the speaker’s own earlier position regarding the voting requirement for constitutional amendments.

The party says that if the speaker was uncertain about the correct constitutional interpretation, the matter should have been referred to the supreme court before Parliament proceeded with the vote.

“Parliament should not first alter the constitution and leave the legality of the procedure to be determined afterwards,” the APC said, describing the process as “a legislative heist” and “constitutional banditry.”

The opposition further argues that Section 91(1), which generally provides for decisions in parliament to be determined by a majority of members present and voting, cannot override section 108 because the former expressly applies only “except as otherwise provided in this Constitution.”

In the APC’s interpretation, section 108 is the specific constitutional provision governing amendments and therefore takes precedence over the general voting rule.

The party has also challenged the application of the simple-majority threshold during committee stage, arguing that this stage involves substantive changes to constitutional provisions through insertions, deletions and amendments.

It contends that allowing such changes to be approved by a simple majority could result in constitutional provisions being altered without securing the constitutionally prescribed level of parliamentary support.

The APC has therefore called for strict adherence to the country’s 1991 Constitution, insisting that neither parliament, the speaker, the government nor any political party is above the supreme law.

The APC’s position comes amid growing concern from other civil society and national stakeholders over the constitutional amendment process.

In a letter dated 13 August, the Sierra Leone Labour Congress appealed to President Julius Maada Bio to decline assenting the bill and urged that it be returned to parliament for reconsideration.

The Labour Congress said position papers submitted by religious organisations, civil society and other interest groups, including the Congress itself, were not adequately considered during parliamentary deliberations.

It further argued that the bill could weaken citizens’ ability to freely elect members of parliament by shifting what it described as a “sacred responsibility” from voters to political parties.

The organisation asked President Bio to reconsider the legislation “in light of the overwhelming reservation by the people.”

These concerns have also been echoed by the Inter-Religious Council of Sierra Leone (IRCSL), which on 17 August called for parliament to reconvene and continue deliberations on the outstanding issues surrounding the constitutional amendment process.

IRCSL reiterated that the 1991 Constitution is the supreme law and “must therefore not be treated as the property or instrument of any political party,” whether in government or opposition.

The faith-based organisation urged parliament, judiciary, the president and other stakeholders to act in the national interest and in accordance with constitutional principles. It also called for a constructive and nationally acceptable consensus while respecting the procedures governing constitutional amendments.

The IRCSL’s intervention is particularly significant because of its participation in the consultations preceding the constitutional amendment process and linked the reforms to the broader national reform agenda arising from the Agreement for National Unity and the Tripartite Committee report.

With the parliamentary process now being disputed, the APC says it is taking the matter to court.

The party’s challenge is expected to centre on the interpretation of the constitutional voting threshold and whether parliament could lawfully proceed with the bill on the basis of a simple majority while the constitutional question remained unresolved.

The APC argues that the 1991 Constitution cannot be amended first and the legality of the procedure determined afterwards.

The dispute now places the judiciary at the centre of a constitutional question with potentially far-reaching implications for parliament, political parties and the future interpretation of constitutional amendment procedures.

For the APC, the issue goes beyond the substance of the proposed amendments.

It says the fundamental question is whether the constitutional procedure designed to protect the country’s supreme law was followed.

As the legal and political dispute unfolds, pressure is mounting to address the competing interpretations and prevent the constitutional reform process from deepening existing political divisions.

The IRCSL has called for wisdom, humility and mutual respect among parliamentarians, stressing that Sierra Leone belongs to all its citizens and that the constitutional process must ultimately serve the country’s peace, stability, democracy and development.