By Mackie M. Jalloh
The Citizens Advocacy Network (CAN) has raised a fresh constitutional challenge over the passage of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025, calling on President Julius Maada Bio to withhold his assent until questions surrounding the required parliamentary voting threshold are conclusively addressed.
In a formal petition dated August 24, CAN Executive Director Thomas Moore Conteh argued that the controversy is not primarily about the substance of the proposed constitutional reforms, but whether Parliament followed the precise procedure established by the Constitution when approving the Bill.
The intervention comes after Parliament passed the controversial amendment legislation on August 10 following tense and highly debated proceedings, including a walkout by members of the opposition. CAN says the circumstances surrounding the vote warrant an independent verification of the parliamentary record before the President takes any further constitutional step.
At the centre of CAN’s argument is Section 108(2)(b) of the 1991 Constitution, which provides that a constitutional amendment must receive the support of “not less than two-thirds of the Members of Parliament” at the relevant stages.
The organisation maintains that the wording of the Constitution requires the two-thirds threshold to be calculated against the full lawful membership of Parliament rather than simply the number of lawmakers physically present or participating in the vote.
According to CAN, Parliament had 149 valid Members at the time, meaning that at least 100 affirmative votes would have been necessary to satisfy the constitutional threshold.
The organisation therefore wants the President to establish, through certified parliamentary records, precisely how many lawmakers voted in favour of the Bill at both the second and third readings.
CAN stressed that the issue cannot be settled merely by pointing to the presence, absence or conduct of opposition lawmakers during the proceedings.
The group argues that an opposition walkout does not, by itself, lower the constitutional requirement for passing an amendment to the supreme law of the country. In its view, abstentions or absences cannot transform a constitutionally prescribed supermajority into an ordinary parliamentary majority.
For CAN, the central question is therefore straightforward: Did the Bill receive the constitutionally required number of affirmative votes at each relevant stage?
The organisation is asking President Bio to obtain official documentation establishing the number of valid Members of Parliament on the date of passage and the exact number of votes recorded in favour of the Bill during the second and third readings.
CAN warns that if the official records demonstrate that fewer than 100 Members supported the legislation at either required stage, serious questions would arise over the validity of the amendment process.
The advocacy group, however, made clear that its objection should not be interpreted as opposition to constitutional reform itself. Instead, it says constitutional change must be achieved through strict compliance with the legal safeguards designed to protect the country’s democratic order.
CAN described President Bio as having a constitutional responsibility to ensure that the amendment process meets the requirements of the supreme law before assenting to the legislation.
The organisation has consequently urged the President either to return the Bill to Parliament for further consideration or seek an authoritative determination from the Supreme Court under Section 122 of the Constitution.
The petition comes amid broader public debate over the proposed constitutional changes, particularly provisions relating to presidential elections, political representation, women’s participation in governance and other elements of Sierra Leone’s democratic architecture.
CAN argues that regardless of the political consequences of the proposed amendments, the process used to incorporate them into the Constitution must command public confidence and withstand legal scrutiny.
The group warned that allowing an unresolved dispute over the voting threshold to accompany constitutional amendments into law could establish a troubling precedent for future governments and Parliaments.
“The Constitution may be changed, but it must be changed constitutionally,” CAN stated, stressing that constitutional legitimacy cannot be separated from procedural compliance.
The organisation further argued that the issue transcends partisan politics, noting that the same constitutional rules would apply irrespective of which political party controls Parliament or occupies State House in the future.
The petition has been copied to several key national and international stakeholders, including the Speaker of Parliament, the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone, as well as diplomatic missions representing countries including the United States, United Kingdom, Ghana and Nigeria.
CAN’s intervention now places renewed attention on the official parliamentary record and the constitutional interpretation of the two-thirds requirement, with the President potentially facing an important decision over whether to assent to the Bill or seek further clarification before proceeding.
At stake, according to CAN, is not simply the fate of one amendment Bill, but the principle that any alteration to Sierra Leone’s supreme law must satisfy both the substance and the procedure demanded by the Constitution.
