Freetown — The Citizens Advocacy Network (CAN) has publicly rejected claims by the Sierra Leone Police that the organisation was formally invited to, or took part in, any meeting about its planned protest and procession on 26 August 2026, describing any such suggestion as untrue and misleading.
In a press statement, CAN said it had noted the Police communication on the proposed demonstration but insisted it never received a formal invitation or engaged in prior consultations with the force on the matter. The dispute centres on whether a telephone call qualifies as a formal invitation.
CAN acknowledged that the Police may have contacted an individual by phone about a possible meeting. However, it argued that a call from an unidentified or anonymous source, without official identification, written communication or a clearly stated purpose, cannot be treated as a formal invitation on an issue of significant national importance.
The organisation expressed concern that public information had been presented in a way that could create the false impression of formal engagement and a shared position between CAN and the Police.
Despite the disagreement, CAN reaffirmed its commitment to peaceful and lawful civic action. It stressed that its goal remains the exercise of rights guaranteed under Sierra Leonean law, including the rights of citizens and civil society groups to assemble peacefully, express concerns and advocate on matters of public interest.
The group noted that if the Police have concerns about the proposed protest, these should be addressed transparently and directly with the organisers rather than through public statements that imply prior consultation where none occurred.
CAN called on the Sierra Leone Police to publicly clarify the circumstances of its earlier statement and correct any inaccurate suggestion that the organisation was formally invited to or participated in discussions about the demonstration. It also urged the force to exercise restraint and professionalism in public communications so that information released to citizens is accurate, balanced and independently verifiable.
Importantly, CAN stressed that it has not withdrawn its position on the planned civic action and remains committed to peaceful engagement guided by transparency, accountability, constitutionalism and respect for fundamental rights and freedoms.
Background to the planned protest
The planned demonstration follows CAN’s formal notification to Inspector-General of Police William Fayia Sellu on 17 August 2026. The organisation, led by Executive Director Thomas Moore Conteh, said it intended to hold a peaceful protest and procession to express disapproval of what it describes as Parliament’s violation of constitutional provisions in the process of amending Sierra Leone’s 1991 Constitution. Participants were also to petition President Julius Maada Bio on the matter.
The proposed route was to begin at Lumley Beach and proceed through Stadium Car Park, Savage Street, St. John, Sanders Street and Siaka Stevens Street, ending at State House. CAN expected a large turnout and requested Police cooperation on crowd management, traffic control, public safety and emergency access. Copies of the notification were sent to key national institutions, the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone, the United Nations Resident Coordinator, the European Union Delegation and several diplomatic missions.
On 20 August 2026, the Sierra Leone Police formally disallowed the protest and procession in a letter signed by Chief Superintendent Ismail Keita on behalf of the Inspector-General. The Police invoked Section 17(2) of the Public Order Act, 1965, which allows the Commissioner of Police to disallow a procession where, in their opinion, the interests of defence, public order, public safety or public morality require it. The letter also referred to an invitation from the Inspector-General for an “ethical interview” scheduled for 19 August to discuss the details of the intended protest, stating that CAN chose not to honour it. The Police warned of legal consequences under Section 17(3) for anyone participating in a disallowed procession.
The broader context involves ongoing parliamentary debate on proposed amendments to the 1991 Constitution, including changes to the presidential election threshold. Opposition lawmakers have previously walked out of related proceedings, and the issue has fuelled national discussion about constitutional procedure and democratic accountability.
Section 26 of the 1991 Constitution protects freedom of assembly and association, subject to limitations necessary for public safety and order. Civil society groups have long argued for clearer protection of peaceful protest rights, while the Police maintain their statutory duty to regulate processions in the interest of public order.
