Dr Sylvia Blyden has launched a detailed constitutional argument defending the length of former President Ernest Bai Koroma’s two terms while outlining the constitutional timeline she says will govern President Julius Maada Bio’s departure in 2028.

Blyden’s position comes amid renewed political debate over presidential tenure after SLPP National Public Relations Officer Moses Mambu referred publicly to both 2028 and 2030 as possible election years. Mambu did not explicitly say the government intends to extend Bio’s tenure to 2030.

In lecture notes issued by her office on August 26, Blyden argues that Koroma did not unlawfully extend either of his presidential terms, saying his continued stay in office after the five-year periods reflected the operation of Section 49(1)(a) of the 1991 Constitution.

The constitutional provision states that the president shall not resign or retire at the expiration of his term while a general election of Members of Parliament is pending within the ensuing three months, or while a state of public emergency has been declared.

Related News

Blyden’s argument centres on the different constitutional clocks governing the presidency and Parliament.

She maintains that Koroma assumed the presidency on September 17, 2007, the day he was declared the winner of the presidential election and sworn in. Contemporary records confirm that the National Electoral Commission declared Koroma the winner on that date and that he was sworn in the same day.

The 1991 Constitution provides under Section 42(3) that a person elected president assumes office on the day he is declared elected by the Returning Officer, or on the date the predecessor’s term expires, whichever is later. The Judiciary has similarly explained that the constitutional framework requires the elected president to assume office upon declaration, with the presidential oath administered upon assumption of office.

Blyden therefore places the end of Koroma’s first five-year presidential term on September 17, 2012. However, she points out that Parliament had not yet reached the end of its own five-year life at that point.

According to parliamentary and electoral records, the outgoing Parliament was dissolved on Sept. 25, 2012, while the 2012 general elections were held on Nov. 17. Koroma was subsequently re-elected and sworn in for a second term on November 23, 2012.

Blyden argues that Section 49(1)(a) prevented Koroma from retiring while the parliamentary election remained pending within the constitutional period.

She applies the same reasoning to Koroma’s second term. He was sworn in on November 23, 2012, and the Supreme Court has previously stated that his second five-year term began on that date and expired on November 23, 2017.

The Parliament elected in 2012 had a separate five-year timetable. Under Section 85(1), Parliament stands dissolved five years after the date of its first sitting following a general election. Section 87(1) then requires a parliamentary election to take place no earlier than 30 days and no later than 90 days after dissolution.

The 2018 parliamentary and presidential elections followed that constitutional framework, with Bio declared president on April 4, 2018 and sworn in the same day.

Blyden argues that Bio’s first presidential term similarly expired on April 4, 2023, while Parliament remained in existence until the completion of its own constitutional cycle.

The 2023 Parliament began its term on July 13, 2023, when elected MPs took their oaths of office. Parliamentary records reported that 96 MPs were sworn in that day, constituting the Sixth Parliament of the Second Republic.

The 2023 presidential election was held on June 24, and Bio was declared the winner on June 27, 2023, when he took the presidential oath for his second term.

Blyden says these dates demonstrate that the continued occupation of the presidency after the nominal five-year point should not automatically be characterised as an unlawful extension. Instead, she argues, Section 49 addresses the circumstances under which a president may leave office while the parliamentary election process is pending.

Her argument now turns to 2028.

Blyden calculates that Bio’s second five-year presidential term, based on his June 27, 2023 assumption of office, would reach its five-year point on June 27, 2028. She says the existing Parliament’s five-year period would run until July 13, 2028, after which Section 87(1) would provide a 30-to-90-day window for the parliamentary election.

On that calculation, she places October 11, 2028, as the 90-day outer limit following the anticipated July 13 dissolution.

The Constitution, however, does not simply prescribe a 90-day presidential extension. Section 49(1)(a) specifically addresses the president’s inability to resign or retire while a parliamentary election is pending, while Section 49(2) separately provides a mechanism for extending the presidential five-year period in circumstances where Sierra Leone is at war, and Parliament determines that elections cannot practicably be held. Any such extension cannot exceed six months at a time.

Blyden consequently rejects the suggestion that the constitutional framework permits an open-ended extension of presidential tenure.

She concludes that, absent extraordinary constitutional circumstances, Bio would have to leave office after the 2028 electoral process produces a successor who is constitutionally entitled to assume the presidency.

The debate has gained renewed political attention following Mambu’s Aug. 26 remarks that referred to the next election as occurring in “2028 or 2030.” While Mambu did not say the SLPP or government had decided to extend Bio’s tenure, the reference to 2030 has intensified questions about the country’s electoral timetable.

Blyden’s lecture notes seek to place that debate within the text of the 1991 Constitution rather than political speculation, arguing that the constitutional provisions governing presidential tenure, parliamentary dissolution and elections must be read together.

Her central position is that Koroma’s two presidencies and Bio’s first term should be assessed against those interconnected constitutional timelines, rather than treating the period between the expiration of a presidential five-year term and the inauguration of a successor as an automatic unlawful extension.

The constitutional interpretation advanced by Blyden is, however, an argument rather than a judicial determination on the 2028 scenario. The final interpretation of any disputed constitutional provision would ultimately depend on the competent constitutional authorities and, where necessary, the courts.

Blyden said her full constitutional lecture would subsequently be broadcast to the public.