-CSO admonishes Parliament
By Kadiatu Sankoh
The National Consortium on Public Accountability (NCPA) has called on the Speaker of Parliament to put on hold the ongoing process surrounding the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill 2025, arguing that more public consultation and civic education are needed before further legislative action is taken.
In a press release dated 30th July 2026, the consortium said its review of the Bill revealed provisions that require broader national dialogue, transparency and accountability. It stressed that citizens must be adequately informed and given the opportunity to participate in discussions on constitutional reforms that could shape the country’s future governance system.
The group said that while it recognises the stated objective of reforming Sierra Leone’s electoral and governance framework, some provisions contained in the proposed amendments could negatively affect democracy, political stability and national cohesion if enacted without sufficient consultation.
Among its major concerns, the NCPA highlighted proposed changes relating to the removal of the President and Vice President, the Presidential Election threshold, independent presidential candidates, the Proportional Representation system, election petition timelines and the deregistration of political parties.
The consortium criticised clauses that would allow Parliament, through a two-thirds majority vote, to remove a President or Vice President who resigns from or is expelled by the political party under which they were elected. It argued that such a provision could weaken political party accountability and alter the balance of power established under the 1991 Constitution.
The CSOs also opposed the proposed reduction of the presidential election threshold from 55 percent to 50 percent plus one vote, warning that the change could undermine national unity by encouraging regional political divisions.
On independent presidential candidacy, the consortium expressed concern that the proposed requirement for candidates to demonstrate “sufficient financial capacity and community support” could favour wealthy individuals and create opportunities for powerful interests to influence the political process.
The group further raised concerns over the proposed three-day deadline for filing presidential election petitions, describing it as an unrealistic timeframe that could restrict access to justice and limit the ability of aggrieved parties to properly prepare legal challenges.
The NCPA also rejected the proposed move towards a Proportional Representation electoral system, arguing that it could weaken constituency representation and increase the influence of political party executives over the selection of lawmakers.
The consortium urged Parliament to maintain the 55 percent presidential threshold, reject the proposed independent presidential candidate provision, extend the election petition timeline, retain the current election period, protect political party pluralism and reconsider the shift to Proportional Representation.
The NCPA called for a more inclusive amendment process involving public hearings, civic education and consultations with civil society organisations, traditional leaders, women, youth, persons with disabilities, faith-based groups and rural communities.
The consortium said it plans to organise regional press conferences and a nationwide sensitisation campaign to raise public awareness on the proposed constitutional amendments.
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CSOs NATIONAL CONSORTIUM ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY POSITION /OBSERVATION THEREIN CONTAINED IN THE AMENDMENTS BILL 2025 THUS ASKS FOR THE SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT TO PUT A HOLD ON THIS BILLE SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT TO PUT A HOLD ON THIS BILL
After careful deliberations and analysis of the First Reading by the Attorney General and Members of the SLPP and APC, we realized that much needs to be done in the aspects of robust public sensitization and education about the provisions in the 2025 Amendments Bill. From a nationalistic point of view, the legislative arm of government serves as the strongest pillar of government that has the proclivity to make good laws for generations yet
unborn. On this consideration, the National Consortium on Public Accountability having been extensively and considerably conducted a comparatively studied the merits and demerits of the amendment bill 2025.
We are of the firm conviction that citizens are concerns about laws that have the potency to divide, disunite and altogether put us in the state of predicament and wallowing. It is evident that the disadvantage aspect of this amendment bill 2025 far outweighs the good aspect of the amendment bill. Therefore, we must all come together as a nation to ensure that citizens are not only seen but must be heard. Democracy emphasizes about adequate dialogue and engagement.
Objectively, emerging things have been identified which makes the Amendments Bill to be broadened compared to all the constitutional review processes. The advents of AI, Tiktok and Facebook have all made a significant impact in the media landscape. On this regard, we are calling on all parties to have more transparency and accountability in the process so that everyone can be informed about the Amendments Bill 2025.
Consequently, the National CSO Consortium on Public Accountability views the debates as a significant approach to nation building. All members of parliament including civil society organizations and media must take a position that can stand a test of time. These provisions contained grave concerns of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill 2025 as currently being debated in Parliament.
While we acknowledge the Bill’s stated intent to reform our electoral and governance framework, we are compelled to alert the nation that several of its provisions, if enacted, pose an existential threat to our democracy, political stability and eventually our national cohesion. Do you know why Justice Cowan advised not to rush the constitutional review process?
Because he wanted peace and stability.
The consortium policy experts and legal team have carefully examined and perused the Bill with the utmost importance it deserves in order to liberate our country, democracy and national security. Therefore, NCPA wishes to crave the attention of Parliament and the Sierra Leonean public to the following provisions that we strongly condemn therein:
EXECUTIVE REMOVAL PROVISION UNDERMINES POLITICAL PARTIES AND DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY
Clause 9 of the Bill amends Section 49(1) of the Constitution to allow Parliament, by a two-thirds majority, to remove the President if he resigns or is expelled from the political party under which he was elected.
A similar mechanism is applied to the Vice-President under Clause
This provision is a direct affront and assault on the foundational principle of the 1991 Constitution that the President must belong to a political party. As civil society, we cannot sit idly and watch our 1991 constitution being bullied by mediocre.
The framers of our 1991 Constitution were deliberate and wise enough in requiring party affiliation for the presidency—it was never a ceremonial formality but a constitutional leash ensuring that the most powerful individual in the state remains answerable to an organized body of peers in line with checks and balances.
Under this new clause, a President who abandons his party’s principles, betrays the mandate upon which he was elected, or is expelled for gross misconduct can only be removed if Parliament agrees by a two-thirds majority.
In a Parliament dominated by a single party, this threshold is no safeguard it is an insulation mechanism. The President would owe his continued tenure not to the electorate or his party base, but to a legislative body he can manipulate through the PR system.
This clause makes political parties weak, ineffective and powerless. It emancipates the executive from internal party accountability, allowing a President to defy his party with impunity.
The power of political parties to discipline, censure and ultimately expel their own leaders and members who betray the public trust is being systematically dismantled.
We ask: if a President is no longer answerable to his party, to whom is he answerable? The answer, under this Bill, is to no one.
Furthermore, we note that neither the 2024 Tripartite Committee nor the Cowan Constitutional Review Commission explicitly endorsed parliamentary removal on purely party-political grounds.
Justice Cowan himself previously argued that the President’s unique national role means provisions for removal based on party status should not apply to the office.
This provision represents a sharp deviation from established reform consensus.
REDUCTION OF PRESIDENTIAL THRESHOLD TO 50%+1 WILL UNDERMINE NATIONAL UNITY AND COHESION
Clause 7 of the Bill proposes repealing the long-standing requirement that a presidential candidate must secure 55% of the national vote to be declared the winner outright, replacing it with a simple majority of 50%+1.
The 55% threshold, inserted into the 1991 Constitution, is the single greatest safeguard we have against the ethnic and regional balkanization of our polity.
Under the 55% requirement, the All-People’s Congress is compelled to reach beyond the Northern and Western regions, just as the Sierra Leone People’s Party must reach beyond the East and South.
It forces candidates to campaign nationally, to make promises to adversarial strongholds, and to govern with a genuine cross regional mandate.
Dropping to a bare majority will unravel all of this. The APC will entrench in the North and West; the SLPP will entrench in the East and South.
Each will calculate that they only need to maximize turnout in their home regions to scrape past 50%. The result is not democracy—it is a permanent cold war between two geographical blocs, where
the winner takes all and the loser feels utterly disenfranchised. This is a
recipe for civil unrest, not peace.
The proposed 20% geographic spread condition, requiring a candidate to secure at least 20% of the votes in two-thirds of the districts, is equally dangerous and a recipe for chaos.
On paper, it sounds like a safeguard. In practice, paired with the 50% threshold, it is a powder keg. If a candidate wins a national majority but fails to secure the geographic spread, the election will descend into legal chaos.
Democracy requires a President with both broad appeal and a robust mandate. This Bill delivers neither according to the professional standards.
INDEPENDENT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES: A PLOY TO EMPOWER THE WEALTHY AND UNDERMINE PARTY DEMOCRACY
Clause 7 of the Bill also creates a legal pathway for independent presidential candidates, conditional on demonstrating “sufficient financial capacity and community support, as prescribed by law”.
Sierra Leone’s democracy is deeply rooted in kinship, regional loyalty, and patronage networks.
It is not yet mature enough to absorb independent candidacies without severe fragmentation. This clause is not a gesture toward liberal inclusion; it is a deliberate backdoor to undermine the partisan democratic system and enable disgruntled elites who fail to secure their party’s nomination.
Such individuals often have deep pockets and ethnic strongholds.
Allowing them to run independently will splinter the national vote, force costly runoffs, and empower regional warlords or business oligarchs who answer to no political structure.
The vague language of “sufficient financial capacity” is particularly troubling it could be exploited to erect prohibitive barriers, effectively reserving the presidency for the wealthy or establishment-backed figures. We must never allow this clause to take effect. Our democracy is not yet mature for independent candidates, and this provision must be rejected outright. This provision will also be attractive to money launderers and drug lords to finance their lucrative and unscrupulous business ventures.
DANGEROUS COMPRESSION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Clause 7 of the Bill provides that any person dissatisfied with the declaration of the Chief Electoral Commissioner must file a petition at the
Supreme Court within 3 days.
The Supreme Court must then hear and determine the petition within 14 days.
This is what legal experts have rightly termed “a dangerous compression of constitutional rights into rigid procedural timelines that may ultimately weaken, rather than strengthen, our democracy”.
A presidential election involves results from across the entire country. Evidence must be gathered from multiple districts.
Affidavits must be sworn. Legal teams must analyses data, verify discrepancies, and prepare constitutional arguments.
To compress this process into seventy-two hours is to create a constitutional bottleneck that risks shutting the door on legitimate grievances. Justice must be accessible. It must not be trapped within unrealistic procedural deadlines.
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION SYSTEM UNDERMINES CONSTITUENCY OWNERSHIP AND DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY
Certainly, this is the proposal that has received the highest disapproval and we fervently believe that the PR System is indeed troubling.
Reviewing the constitution to a PR system will undermine the public and constituency ownership of the democratic process. It is a recipe to empower the executive and the leadership of the party as against the constituencies who have rights to vote for those who represent them.
Recently, we seen many deaths of MPs and proponents believe that the cause of these deaths is not connected to party members waiting list.
Kenema, Kambia and other districts are notably in this direction.
It also militates the rights of aspirants who are loved by their people making them vulnerable to the choice of the executive who in most cases play major roles in awarding political party symbols. Therefore, providing immunity to the president and vice president against party disciplinary procedures, and, empowering the leadership to determine who goes to parliament makes the entire electoral process and the rights to vote and be voted for, very vulnerable.
FIXED ELECTION DATE IN NOVEMBER DISRUPTS FESTIVE SEASON AND RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE
Clause 8 of the Bill moves the general election date to the second Saturday of November. This timing is deeply problematic. Sierra Leone’s festive season December through early January is a sacred period of family reunion, economic climax and social rest. Placing a high-stakes, nationally divisive election mere weeks before Christmas disrupt the social fabric. It compresses the timeline for electoral petitions, transitional preparations, and budget approvals into the busiest commercial quarter of the year. More importantly, it robs citizens of the mental and emotional space to engage in festive goodwill, replacing it with political anxiety. The current dry-season timing around March or April, which aligns with academic calendars and agricultural cycles, is far more practical and less disruptive. This will also undermine respect for the Christian religion as Christmas is the biggest festive season for Christians.
DEREGISTRATION OF POLITICAL PARTIES THREATENS DEMOCRATIC PLURALISM
Clause 21 of the Bill empowers the Political Parties Registration and Regulation Commission to deregister a political party that fails to win national or local election in two successive general elections.
This is a dangerous provision that threatens democratic pluralism. Political parties play a vital constitutional role in shaping public opinion and providing political education, irrespective of electoral success. Deregistering parties for electoral failure alone undermine the very essence of political competition and dissent.
OUR CALL TO PARLIAMENT
We call on the Members of Parliament to tread carefully as Some of these amendments have the great proclivity to undermine our democratic gains and achievements as a nation. The 1991 Constitution was crafted with hard-won wisdom after years of authoritarian rule and civil conflict. These amendments, under the guise of modernization, seek to unwind that wisdom.
Democracy is not about making elections easier for the powerful it is about making power accountable to the people and their organized political movements. The amendment process itself must be inclusive, involving broad consultations, civic education, public hearings, and engagement with civil society, traditional leaders, women, youth, persons with disabilities, faith-based organizations, and rural communities. This Bill, in its current form, fails that test.
We therefore call on Parliament to:
- Reject Clauses 9 and 12 which allow parliamentary removal of a President or Vice-President on party-political grounds. The power to discipline and expel leaders must remain with political parties, not Parliament.
- Retain the 55% presidential threshold and reject the 50%+1 proposal which will divide our nation along regional and ethnic lines.
- Reject the provision for independent presidential candidates as our democracy is not yet mature for such a system, and it creates a dangerous avenue for money launderers and drug lords to infiltrate our political space.
- Extend the election petition filing timeline from 3 days to a more reasonable period that allows for meaningful access to justice.
- Restore the election date to March or April, avoiding the festive season and respecting the Christian faith.
- Reject the party deregistration clause which threatens democratic pluralism.
- Reject the proposed shift to a Proportional Representation system, which undermines constituency ownership, disenfranchises grassroots aspirants, and hands excessive power to party executives over the sovereign will of the people.
The eyes of the nation are upon Parliament. History will judge not by what was promised, but by what was done. We urge our lawmakers to rise above partisan interest and protect the democratic gains that generations of Sierra Leoneans have sacrificed to achieve.
Democracy belongs to the people, not to any single party.
ACTION POINT:
- We intend to call a massive regional press conference stating the demerits and merits
- We intend to take a nationwide campaign and sensitization on the amendment bill 2025