Why Supreme Court Should Throw Out Constitutional Amendment Cases – Government of Sierra Leone
Sorie Abubakar The Government of Sierra Leone has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss three consolidated cases challenging Parliament’s handling of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025, arguing that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter.
In a Notice of Motion dated 16 October 2026, the Law Officers’ Department asked the Court to strike out the cases, which challenge the Speaker of Parliament’s ruling on the passage of the Bill on 10 August 2026.
The application argues that the Court cannot review the validity of the proposed constitutional amendment before it receives presidential assent. It also relies on Section 94(2) of the 1991 Constitution, which the Government says prevents the Court from enquiring into parliamentary proceedings.
The Government further argues that Section 127 of the Constitution does not give the Court jurisdiction to entertain the challenges. It also contends that presidential immunity under Section 48(4) prevents the Court from making orders that would interfere with the President’s constitutional duties.
The motion asks the Court to suspend all further proceedings in the consolidated cases until the application is heard and determined. It also seeks an order for costs and any other relief the Court considers appropriate.
The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Joseph Sesay, Senior State Counsel, on 16 October 2026.
The consolidated cases were brought by six plaintiffs or respondents, including Members of Parliament Osman Abdal Timbo, Abdul Kargbo and Daniel Koroma, the All People’s Congress (APC), Thomas Moore Conteh and Tamba Kellie. The defendants or applicants named in the proceedings are the Speaker of Parliament, the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, and the Clerk of Parliament.
The dispute centres on whether Parliament complied with the constitutional requirement that amendments to the Constitution receive the support of at least two-thirds of all Members of Parliament. The challengers dispute the Speaker’s ruling on the procedure used to pass the Bill.
President Julius Maada Bio has separately sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on the constitutional questions surrounding the Bill before deciding whether to assent to it.
If the Court grants the Government’s application, the consolidated cases could be dismissed without a substantive ruling on whether Parliament complied with the constitutional requirements for passing the Bill. If the application is refused, the challenges could proceed to further hearings.
The Notice of Motion was filed on 16 October 2026.
