Former Anti-Corruption Commissioner and All People’s Congress (APC) flagbearer aspirant Ady Macauley Esq. has rejected arguments defending the passage of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025, insisting that Parliament’s approval of the Bill on 10 August 2026 failed to meet the constitutional requirements for amending the country’s supreme law.

Macauley made the position in a rejoinder to an article by Dr Michael Imran Kanu, who had defended Parliament’s interpretation of the constitutional threshold required under Section 108(2)(b) and argued that the Supreme Court should ultimately determine the competing interpretations of the provision.

But Macauley maintains that the two interpretations are not equally persuasive and argues that the manner in which Parliament proceeded with the Bill cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.

At the centre of the dispute is the meaning of “Members of Parliament” under Section 108(2)(b) of the 1991 Constitution, which governs the passage of constitutional amendment Bills.

Related News

Macauley argues that the Constitution itself provides the meaning of Members of Parliament and that the phrase should not be interpreted to mean only lawmakers who were physically present and voted during the proceedings.

He points to Section 74 of the 1991 Constitution, which defines the composition of Parliament, arguing that “Members of Parliament” refers to the legislature’s total membership, which he puts at 149.

According to Macauley, the constitutional requirement must therefore be assessed against the full membership of Parliament rather than simply the number of lawmakers present during the vote.

He further cites a previous ruling by the Speaker of Parliament, Hon. Segepoh-Thomas, in the Lara Taylor-Pearce matter, in which the Speaker distinguished between the expressions “of Parliament” and “in Parliament.”

Macauley argues that the Speaker’s interpretation supports his position that constitutional language referring to Parliament’s membership cannot automatically be reduced to those present in the chamber at a particular sitting.

He also strongly challenges the use of a voice vote to approve the constitutional amendment.

According to Macauley, a voice vote in which the Speaker declares that “the ayes have it” cannot establish with certainty that the constitutionally required number of Members of Parliament voted in favour of the Bill.

“A voice vote, ‘the ayes have it’ is inherently incapable of demonstrating that 100 Members voted in the affirmative,” Macauley argues, maintaining that where the Constitution establishes a specific numerical threshold, the parliamentary record must demonstrate that the required number was actually achieved.

He consequently contends that Parliament’s method of approving the Bill failed to demonstrate compliance with the constitutional threshold and renders the purported passage “void ab initio” – meaning invalid from the outset.

Macauley also rejects the suggestion that the constitutional dispute should simply be treated as a contest between two equally plausible interpretations.

While acknowledging that the amendment package contains what he describes as “worthy objectives,” including proposed reforms relating to the Electoral Commission, women’s representation and dual citizenship, he insists that the importance of the proposed reforms cannot override constitutional requirements.

“Worthy ends do not justify unconstitutional means,” he argues.

Macauley maintains that the Constitution must remain the ultimate standard against which the legality of the amendment process is measured, regardless of the policy objectives contained in the Bill.

He further argues that the Supreme Court, if called upon to determine the matter, should not be required to choose between two equally valid interpretations but should instead determine whether Parliament complied with the explicit requirements of the Constitution.

“The Supreme Court is not being asked to choose between two equally plausible readings; it is being asked to uphold the Constitution as it was written,” Macauley states.

He concludes that constitutional reform must be grounded in strict adherence to the procedures established by the Constitution itself.

“The gains of a generation deserve to rest on a foundation that is not merely convenient, but constitutionally valid,” he says.

Macauley, a former prosecutor and Commissioner of the Anti-Corruption Commission, is also an alumnus of the International Law Enforcement Academy.

His intervention adds to the growing legal and political debate surrounding Parliament’s passage of the Constitution Amendment Bill and the constitutional threshold required for altering Sierra Leone’s supreme law.