Two members of the Lawyers’ Society of Sierra Leone have taken the Government to the Supreme Court over the procedures used in the purported passage of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025.
Thomas Moore Conteh, Esq. and Tamba Kellie, Esq., acting in their personal capacities, filed the application after the Government declined to grant corporate registration to the Society.
The case, brought under Sections 124 and 127 of the 1991 Constitution, asks the apex court to interpret two key questions: the voting threshold required for a valid constitutional amendment, and the voting method or procedure Parliament must follow.
The lawyers stressed that their action does not challenge Parliament’s legislative authority or supremacy. Rather, it seeks to protect the integrity of the constitutional amendment process by ensuring any change to the supreme law strictly meets the requirements laid down in the Constitution.
“The protection of the rule of law and the promotion of good governance are central to our mandate,” the Society stated, emphasising that the suit aims to uphold constitutional safeguards rather than undermine parliamentary powers.
If the Supreme Court finds that Parliament failed to follow the prescribed procedures, the applicants are seeking a declaration that the purported passage of the Bill is null and void.
The Society has pledged to keep its members and the public updated as the matter progresses.
The application comes amid wider controversy surrounding the Bill, which was declared passed by Parliament on 10 August 2026. Opposition All People’s Congress (APC) MPs walked out of the Chamber before the vote in protest.
Speaker Segepoh Solomon Thomas ruled that the required support was a majority of members present and voting under Section 91(1), rather than the two-thirds of the total membership of Parliament prescribed by Section 108(2)(b) for constitutional amendments. With 149 Members of Parliament, the higher threshold would have required at least 100 affirmative votes.
Legal experts and opposition figures have argued that the special procedure for amending the Constitution cannot be displaced by the general voting rule. Lawyer Melron Nicol-Wilson has publicly described the process as unconstitutional and of no legal effect. Separate Supreme Court actions have also been filed by Honourable Osman Abdal Timbo (represented by former Attorney-General Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara) and by APC leaders, focusing on the same threshold questions and related publication requirements under Section 108.
The Bill itself proposes significant changes, including reforms to the Electoral Commission, a 30 per cent quota for women in political nominations, adjustments to presidential election thresholds, and the permanent adoption of proportional representation for ordinary Members of Parliament. Critics, including the Institute for Legal Research and Advocacy for Justice (ILRAJ), have raised concerns that certain provisions could weaken democratic checks if not properly scrutinised.
The Lawyers’ Society, a relatively new organisation of legal practitioners committed to the rule of law and good governance, has previously spoken out on constitutional and professional issues. Its members’ latest move adds to the growing list of challenges now before the Supreme Court, which holds exclusive original jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution.
