Freetown_ — The legal team of the All People’s Congress (APC) has filed a case at the Supreme Court challenging the Speaker of Parliament’s decision of 10 August 2026 to allow the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025 to pass.
The suit is being brought in the name of Hon. Osman Abdal Timbo, Member of Parliament. Hon. Abdul Kargbo MP and Hon. Daniel Koroma MP are listed as parties for the APC. Named as respondents are the Speaker of Parliament, the Attorney-General, and the Clerk of Parliament.
Speaking on behalf of the party, lawyer Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara said the case raises fundamental questions about adherence to the 1991 Constitution.
The central issues, he said, are the constitutional requirements for publication of any bill seeking to amend the Constitution and the two-thirds majority required for its passage.
According to Kamara, those provisions were designed to prevent hasty changes and to ensure broad support for any alteration to the country’s supreme law.
“This is not about politics,” Kamara said. “It is about principle. Parliament, the government, and everyone else must stay within the Constitution. No one is above it — not the President, not the Speaker, not the Attorney-General, and not Parliament itself.”
He commended Hon. Timbo for initiating the legal action and expressed confidence in the Supreme Court to provide clarity that will protect Sierra Leone’s constitutional order.
Kamara urged citizens to follow the proceedings closely, noting that the Court’s decision will determine the fate of the 2025 Amendment Bill and set a precedent for how future constitutional amendments are handled.
“We are a nation of laws, not of men,” he said. “The Constitution must prevail.”
Background to the dispute
The challenge stems from the parliamentary sitting on 10 August 2026. Following a walkout by opposition MPs, the Speaker ruled that the Bill could be passed by those present, applying an ordinary majority rather than the special two-thirds threshold required for constitutional amendments. The Speaker also referred the question of the required threshold to the Supreme Court.
Legal commentators have weighed in on the matter. Lawyer Melron Nicol-Wilson has argued that the process was invalid and that the purported passage of the Bill has no legal effect.
The Supreme Court is expected to set a date for hearing in the coming weeks.
