JFK Challenges State Readiness as Supreme Court Opens Constitutional Amendment Hearing
Osman Tolo Sesay Former Attorney-General and APC counsel Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara, popularly known as JFK, challenged the State’s preparedness Wednesday as the Supreme Court began hearing cases over Parliament’s disputed passage of the Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2025.
Kamara raised the issue after informing the five-member panel that the Office of the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice had not filed its Statement of Case in the matter.
He argued that his legal team had prepared for the hearing and expected the State to meet the same standard of preparedness as the parties challenging the parliamentary process.
The submission triggered a tense exchange between Kamara and Chief Justice Komba Kamanda, who cautioned lawyers appearing before the Court to maintain professional decorum and respect the independence and integrity of the judicial process.
Kamara maintained his position, insisting that his team had approached the proceedings with the seriousness required by a case involving fundamental constitutional questions. The Court subsequently stood down briefly before proceedings continued.
At the heart of the case is the dispute over how Parliament approved the Constitutional Amendment Bill.
The APC and other applicants argue that Parliament was required under Section 108(2)(b) of the 1991 Constitution to secure the support of at least two-thirds of all Members of Parliament before passing legislation to amend the Constitution.
The controversy intensified on Aug. 10, when opposition lawmakers walked out of Parliament before the final vote. Speaker Segepoh Solomon Thomas subsequently ruled that the Bill could be passed by a majority of members present and voting. The APC has challenged that interpretation before the Supreme Court.
The amendment Bill proposes significant changes to Sierra Leone’s constitutional and electoral framework. Among the proposed reforms is a reduction of the presidential first-round victory threshold from 55% to 50% plus one vote, alongside changes to parliamentary elections, including the use of proportional representation.
The Bill also proposes a 30% minimum quota for women in political nominations and changes concerning the eligibility of dual citizens to contest parliamentary seats and hold public office.
Kamara has previously argued that the case is fundamentally about constitutional compliance rather than political interests. In an earlier statement on the challenge, he said: “This is not about politics. It is about principle. Parliament, the government, and everyone else must stay within the Constitution. No one is above it, not the President, not the Speaker, not the Attorney-General, and not Parliament itself”.
President Julius Maada Bio has withheld assent to the Bill and referred the constitutional questions surrounding its passage to the Supreme Court under Section 122(1) of the Constitution. Separate legal challenges have also been filed by the APC and other applicants.
The Supreme Court’s decision will determine the constitutional questions surrounding the parliamentary process and could clarify how the two-thirds requirement for constitutional amendments should be applied.