LEGAL COUP
…ILRAJ RAISES ALARM
By Ibrahim Alusine Kamara (Kamalo)
The Institute for Legal Research and Advocacy for Justice (ILRAJ) has delivered a scathing legal indictment of Sierra Leone’s proposed constitutional and electoral amendments, warning Parliament that the Bill, if passed in its current form, could dismantle democratic safeguards and entrench one-party dominance under the guise of reform.
In a detailed position paper dated 23 January 2026, ILRAJ urged lawmakers to either reject the Bill outright or subject it to sweeping revisions anchored in inclusive national dialogue, constitutional safeguards, and the consensus-based reform frameworks agreed after the disputed 2023 elections, including the Tripartite Committee Recommendations of 2024 and the Cowan Constitutional Review Commission (CRC). The organisation warned that Parliament risks legislating instability and authoritarian drift if it proceeds without addressing the Bill’s deep structural flaws.
ILRAJ argued that several provisions fundamentally depart from post-election reform agreements and dangerously tilt the electoral landscape in favour of the executive and the ruling party. According to the organisation, the Bill weakens institutional independence while centralising political control over electoral outcomes, raising serious concerns about the credibility of future elections.
Particularly troubling, ILRAJ said, is the Bill’s failure to impose explicit non-partisanship requirements on electoral bodies. The absence of cooling-off periods for former politicians and bans on party affiliations leaves key institutions exposed to executive capture, undermining public confidence in their neutrality. The organisation also warned that proposed candidate eligibility conditions — including excessive fees and unclear thresholds — risk economically excluding independent candidates and smaller parties, effectively turning democratic participation into a privilege reserved for political elites.
ILRAJ further raised alarm over clauses clarifying that the expulsion of a President from a political party could trigger parliamentary removal proceedings. While acknowledging the need to resolve procedural ambiguities identified by the ECOWAS Court, the organisation stressed that these provisions sharply contradict the Cowan CRC’s position that any question affecting a President’s mandate should be settled only through a national referendum, given the office’s unique role as a symbol of national unity. In an intensely polarised Parliament, ILRAJ warned, such clauses could be weaponised by a ruling majority to overturn the will of voters through internal party disputes, destabilising the state and subverting democratic choice.
The organisation also took aim at Clause 7, which compresses the timeframe for filing election petitions to just three days and assigns the Chief Justice a formal notification role to the Electoral Commission. ILRAJ described the filing window as unrealistic and legally hollow, particularly for opposition parties and independent candidates operating across remote districts amid post-election chaos. By comparison, Kenya allows seven days for election petitions, while Nigeria allows up to 21 days. ILRAJ warned that the proposed arrangement risks eroding judicial independence and blurring the separation of powers by dragging the judiciary into the operational orbit of electoral administration.
ILRAJ also rejected the decision to fix general elections in November, warning that the timing invites avoidable risks. End-of-year holidays, voter fatigue, rushed tallying, and adverse weather conditions could compromise the integrity of the electoral process. The organisation noted that previous elections deliberately avoided holiday periods and that the Tripartite Committee explicitly recommended March, April, or May to reduce logistical and climatic disruptions.
Crucially, ILRAJ dismissed claims that the Bill’s amendments are non-entrenched, stressing that changes to Sections 85 and 87 of the 1991 Constitution are expressly protected under Section 108(3). As such, any amendment legally requires Gazette publication, super-majority parliamentary approval, and endorsement through a national referendum. Any attempt to bypass these constitutional thresholds, ILRAJ warned, would amount to a serious violation of the constitutional order and set a dangerous precedent for future abuses.
In its concluding warning, ILRAJ drew a stark parallel with the 1978 constitutional amendments that ushered in one-party rule through coercion and repression, cautioning that the current Bill risks reopening that dark chapter of Sierra Leone’s history. Without substantial amendments, the organisation said, the Bill poses an existential threat to the country’s democracy, offering a veiled mechanism for entrenching ruling-party power, marginalising opposition forces, and suffocating effective political competition.
ILRAJ called for immediate, inclusive pre-legislative hearings involving civil society, opposition parties, and constitutional experts, urging Parliament to halt the rush toward passage and defer contentious provisions to a broader, Cowan-inspired constitutional review process anchored in public referendums and genuine national consensus.