Press Secretary to President Julius Maada Bio, Yusuf Keketoma Sandi, has accused the All People’s Congress (APC) of applying double standards in its criticism of the ongoing constitutional amendment process, citing the party’s handling of a constitutional amendment in 2013.

Sandi said the APC administration under former President Ernest Bai Koroma introduced and passed the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Act 2013 in Parliament within a single sitting, arguing that the process raised serious questions about constitutional compliance.

According to him, the 2013 amendment altered provisions relating to the qualifications and tenure of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of Parliament. He said the Bill was introduced by then Deputy Minister of Justice Arrow Bockarie and was passed in approximately three hours after going through all three readings, the committee stage and voting process.

Sandi further alleged that the amendment was passed through a voice vote under Standing Order 45, without a recorded vote to establish whether it had secured the constitutionally required two-thirds majority of Members of Parliament.

Related News

He also criticised the 2013 process for not involving a referral to the Supreme Court for an opinion, arguing that the APC’s approach at the time contrasted sharply with the party’s current objections to the constitutional amendment process.

The presidential press secretary recalled that the then opposition Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP), civil society organisations and some lawmakers had publicly opposed the 2013 amendment. He said 28 civil society organisations issued a joint statement on the day the Bill was passed, urging President Koroma not to assent to it, but the former president subsequently signed it into law on November 29, 2013.

Sandi said the history of the 2013 amendment was relevant to the current constitutional debate, particularly following Speaker Sengepoh Thomas’ ruling during the passage of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Act 2026.

He argued that, unlike the 2013 process, the current amendment process had involved months of dialogue, consultation and engagement before being presented to Parliament. He also pointed to the Speaker’s decision to refer the matter to the Supreme Court as evidence of a different approach to constitutional interpretation.

“The test the APC has set today is one it failed in 2013,” Sandi said, arguing that the constitutional compliance demanded by the APC today was the same standard he alleged the party had disregarded in 2013.

He accused the opposition party of selectively invoking constitutional principles for political purposes, saying the APC could not criticise the 2026 process while ignoring its own record in 2013.

Sandi also rejected allegations by APC Minority Leader Abdul Kargbo that lawmakers had received cash and vehicles to support the constitutional amendment.

He described the allegations as “laughable and ill-advised” and referred to a leaked audio recording which, according to him, was confirmed by Deputy Speaker Tawa Conteh. Sandi claimed the recording suggested that an APC MP had sought assistance to support the Bill.

He said Kargbo, as Minority Leader, should have focused on the substance of the constitutional debate rather than allegations that he described as political mudslinging.

Sandi concluded by challenging the APC to explain, before the Supreme Court, why its administration in 2013 considered Parliament constitutionally entitled to amend the relevant non-entrenched provisions without what he described as the required two-thirds support from Members of Parliament.

He maintained that the APC’s current position on constitutional amendments was inconsistent with its conduct in 2013, accusing the party of failing to apply the constitutional standards it now demands from the governing SLPP.