By Ibrahim Alusine Kamara (Kamalo)
Sierra Leone’s Supreme Court has dealt a significant legal setback to the Attorney General and Minister of Justice after striking out a motion seeking to dismiss the controversial case surrounding the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025, on grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
The ruling, delivered on Tuesday, October 20, 2026, represents an important development in the ongoing constitutional dispute over the passage of the amendment legislation, which has generated considerable political controversy and raised fundamental questions about parliamentary procedures, constitutional compliance and the rule of law.
According to a report published by New Age Newspaper, the Supreme Court rejected the Attorney General’s jurisdictional objection, describing the motion as an attempt to forestall proceedings after the court had already issued directions concerning the case.
The decision effectively removes a preliminary legal obstacle to the continuation of proceedings, allowing the substantive constitutional questions surrounding the disputed legislation to remain before the country’s highest judicial authority.
At the centre of the controversy is the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which Parliament passed on August 10, 2026, amid fierce opposition from the main opposition All Peoples Congress (APC), whose Members of Parliament staged a walkout in protest against the legislative process.
The opposition has consistently questioned the constitutionality of the bill’s passage, particularly whether Parliament complied with the voting threshold prescribed by the 1991 Constitution for amendments to entrenched constitutional provisions.
A major point of contention has been whether the legislation required the support of at least two-thirds of the entire membership of Parliament, as opposed to a majority calculated on the basis of members present and voting.
With Parliament comprising 149 Members, opponents of the process maintain that the constitutional requirement would necessitate at least 100 affirmative votes where the two-thirds threshold applies.
The controversy subsequently escalated into a legal battle, with opposition lawmakers seeking judicial interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions and the legality of the parliamentary process.
The Attorney General’s attempt to challenge the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction therefore represented a significant preliminary issue, as a successful objection could have prevented the court from proceeding to examine the substantive constitutional arguments.
However, Tuesday’s reported ruling has altered that position, with the Supreme Court declining to terminate the proceedings on jurisdictional grounds.
Of particular significance is the court’s reported characterisation of the motion as an attempt to forestall proceedings after directions had already been issued. That observation raises questions about the timing and procedural basis of the Attorney General’s application.
Nevertheless, the dismissal of the motion should not be interpreted as a final determination that the Constitutional Amendment Bill was unlawfully passed. Rather, it means that the jurisdictional challenge has failed, leaving the underlying constitutional dispute unresolved.
The distinction is particularly important given the far-reaching implications of the proposed constitutional reforms, which include changes relating to the presidential electoral threshold, proportional representation and women’s participation in elective politics.
Beyond the immediate legal arguments, the case has become a major test of Sierra Leone’s constitutional governance framework, particularly the relationship between Parliament’s legislative authority, the Executive’s legal position and the Supreme Court’s responsibility to interpret and uphold the Constitution.
For the opposition, the latest development provides an opportunity to continue pursuing judicial clarification of its objections to the parliamentary process.
For the Government, however, the ruling represents a setback to its preliminary legal strategy, although it does not, in itself, invalidate the disputed legislation or determine the merits of the constitutional challenge.
Legal observers are expected to closely monitor the next stage of proceedings, particularly whether the Supreme Court will address the disputed parliamentary voting threshold and the broader constitutional questions arising from the bill’s passage.
The case also carries significant implications for public confidence in the independence of the Judiciary, especially at a time when constitutional reform remains one of the country’s most contentious political issues.
As the legal battle continues, attention will increasingly focus on whether the Supreme Court’s eventual determination will settle the disagreement over the constitutional requirements governing amendments to the nation’s supreme law.
For now, one development stands out: the Attorney General’s attempt to halt the proceedings on jurisdictional grounds has reportedly failed, leaving the constitutional challenge alive before the Supreme Court.
The substantive legal battle over the controversial Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2025, is therefore far from over.
