On 20 February 2026, His Excellency the President appointed Mr. Edmond S. Alpha as substantive Chief Electoral Commissioner of the Electoral Commission of Sierra Leone (ECSL), subject to the approval of Parliament. That decision followed a consultation process that produced endorsement from 12 of the 14 registered political parties.

Despite participating in the consultation process, the main opposition, the All People’s Congress (APC), issued a press release rejecting the appointment, called on the government to rescind it, and gave a 48-hour ultimatum threatening to withdraw APC’s elected officials from Parliament, local councils and other governance structures.

The APC claims that the appointment constitutes an assault on the Agreement for National Unity, questions Mr. Alpha’s credibility and post‑election conduct, and asserts lack of good faith in implementing the Tripartite recommendations. Even if APC believes these charges to be legitimate, its 48-hour ultimatum is unjustifiable and without basis.

To start with, the President’s action was constitutional, lawful and consistent with the scope of the Agreement for National Unity. Paragraph C of the Agreement’s preamble is explicit and dispositive: the laws of the Republic of Sierra Leone, especially the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Act No.6 1991), are sacrosanct. Accordingly, an Agreement that expressly recognizes the Constitution’s primacy cannot be given an interpretation that makes the lawful exercise of a constitutional duty an “assault” on that Agreement. Clearly, the Agreement acknowledges its limitation by deferring to the Constitution.

Related News

The APC further contends that the appointment demonstrates bad faith in implementing the Tripartite recommendations and Agreement. Unarguably, there is overwhelming evidence of Government’s commitment to the implementation of the Tripartite recommendations and Agreement. This is not in dispute. It is therefore inconceivable that the APC desires to use an amorphous claim of “good faith” to invalidate a clear constitutional prerogative. In my view, “good faith” is not a superseding constraint that disempowers the President from performing duties entrusted by the constitution.

Our APC friends have also argued that the concerns raised by APC in its ultimatum press release had already been conveyed during the consultation. They assert that the APC has been consistent in its position and the ultimatum is not unreasonable. I pointed one of them to section 171(14) of the Constitution, which makes clear that after the consultation the President was not required to act in accordance with the advice of the APC or any political party. Additionally, the provision safeguards the exercise of that function by stating that the question of whether consultation was made shall not be inquired into in any court. Nonetheless, in the interest of transparency the public was informed of the approvals received from political parties during the consultation.

Consequently, it is my view that APC cannot accept to participate in the consultation process and later repudiate the result when the outcome is unfavorable. If APC remains unhappy with the appointment, it should have mobilized their MPs, participated in the parliamentary interview, presented its objections, canvassed other MPs and sought to block the confirmation through the debate and votes. Their absence from the parliamentary interview of Mr. Edmond S. Alpha, though it does not invalidate the process, it denies their electorate of representation.

Some critics have also argued that the appointment is premature because a constitutional amendment bill is currently before Parliament. This is simply a political and not a legal argument. The mere first reading of the bill does not suspend the existing provision of the constitution that the bill seeks to amend. Until an amendment is passed and comes into force, the Constitution remains in full effect.

Moreover, all parties have agreed that the bill is contentious because there is substantial disagreement on key provisions. The precise timing of the bill’s passage is uncertain. It may be passed this session or the next session depending on how the disagreements are resolved. It is therefore reasonable that the President may have considered it imprudent to maintain the Chief Electoral Commissioner in an acting capacity while an unpredictable legislative process plays out.

There are also operational reasons why a substantive appointment is essential. The ECSL has been in receipt of the Independent Management and Functional Review Report that requires long-term, decisive leadership to implement recommendations and manage structural reform. Substantive reform requires someone with secure tenure and the authority to make binding long-range decisions.

Equally, Sierra Leone is a little over two years away from a critical transition election. Preparing for free, fair and credible elections demands a stable leadership at the ECSL well in advance. Leaving the commission without a substantive Chief Electoral Commissioner would be a needless risk to institutional preparedness and public confidence.

APC must accept that democratic practice rests on lawful procedures and the will of the majority within those procedures. The President acted within the provisions of the 1991 Constitution and received endorsements from 12 of the 14 registered political parties in the consultation, a commanding expression of political support. The Agreement for National Unity does not suspend constitutional provisions governing appointments. Similarly, “Good faith” cannot displace constitutional powers.

Hence, sustaining democratic processes, respecting constitutional duties, and ensuring the ECSL has stable leadership are matters of national interest that transcend short‑term partisan calculations. APC must learn to resolve differences within the law so Sierra Leone can continue to move forward with stability and respect for the rule of law.