By Cornelius Oguntola Melvin Deveaux
The storm now engulfing the APC was not unforeseen. Let us be clear: this is not about rivalry or animosity toward de facto chairman Osman Foday Yansaneh. What has befallen the main opposition party is a constitutional crisis that is cynically exploited by those determined to keep the APC in opposition, by actors seeking to hold power through other means, and by incumbents unwilling to relinquish authority. At the center of this turmoil lies a dangerous silence in our constitution. Looming above it are two court cases that hang like the sword of Damocles, suspending the National Delegates Conference in endless uncertainty.
Following the expiration of the three- year tenure of the National Officers in February, the Political Parties Regulation Commission (PPRC) granted a six-month extension that was widely contested as ultra vires the party’s constitution. It was this extension, now expired, that Alie Suma, the Port Loko district chairman, challenged in court. Instead of confronting the crisis, the PPRC exceeded its mandate by granting the de facto executive indefinite continuity, citing the pending litigation. Far from resolving the impasse, this decision has deepened it.
Alfred Peter Conteh and Sheridan Kamara (MP) have since returned to court, contesting the PPRC’s indefinite extension and seeking a declaration that the decision is null and void, alongside the establishment of an interim arrangement that includes them or their representatives.
The situation worsened when Justice Fisher issued a sweeping injunction against Yansaneh and National Secretary General Lansana Dumbuya, restraining them from acting as party leaders. This judicial order stripped the APC of its recognized leadership, plunging its organizational machinery into paralysis. Routine functions, convening meetings, issuing directives, coordinating structures, are frozen. Though not all National Officers were enjoined from carrying out their duties, members and the public remain in limbo, uncertain where legitimate authority lies.
Responsibility for this predicament rests squarely with Osman Foday Yansaneh. A seasoned political actor, he has witnessed how prolonged court battles and indefinite extensions cripple party preparedness and erode legitimacy. Yet he allowed history to repeat itself, presiding over a situation that has thrown the APC into paralysis. His failure to act decisively, to shield the party from predictable pitfalls, is not merely an oversight. It is a failure of stewardship at a critical moment.
Equally troubling is the grave failure of the National Legal Adviser. By mandate, he is entrusted to advise the party on all legal matters, interpret the constitution and bylaws, and conduct litigation in defense of the party’s interests. Yet at this juncture, he has failed to provide the guidance that could have shielded the APC from constitutional paralysis and judicial entanglement. His silence in the face of tenure expiry and indefinite extensions has left the party exposed to injunctions and regulatory manipulation.
Perhaps he is aware that his own three-year tenure, as provided for in Article 50(k)(v), has already lapsed, and has quietly relinquished his duties. If so, this abdication has compounded the leadership vacuum, depriving the APC of the very legal stewardship meant to safeguard its legitimacy and continuity.
The consequences are severe. At the very moment the APC should be preparing for the National Delegates Conference and positioning itself for the 2028 elections, it is trapped in a vacuum. Supporters of the restrained officers decry judicial overreach, while critics hail the ruling as a necessary corrective. Either way, the party is immobilized, vulnerable to further legal entanglements, and at risk of losing credibility with both members and the wider electorate.
Beyond the turmoil lies a deeper constitutional crisis. The APC constitution remains perilously silent on what happens between the expiration of an executive’s tenure under Article 52(a) and (b), and the formal dissolution of National Officers at the National Delegates Conference under Article 17(d). This silence extends to other critical structures, including the National Advisory Committee and the National Executive Committee under Articles 21(i) and 24(h), leaving dangerous gaps in succession and continuity.
Three provisions demand urgent reform. Article 46 must be amended to provide explicit transitional arrangements whenever tenure expires without a National Delegates Conference. Article 47 must be strengthened to specify who assumes authority in the interim, ensuring continuity rather than uncertainty. Without these amendments, the APC will remain vulnerable to governance vacuums each time tenure expires before a convention is convened, perpetuating instability and eroding legitimacy.
Judicial delays are no stranger to Sierra Leone’s political life. The Alfred Peter Conteh Vs. Ernest Bai Koroma and the APC litigation and the Dr. Samura Kamara matter showed how repeated adjournments can drag on for months, leaving the party paralyzed and members disillusioned. While litigants may have the right to seek legal redress, tethering the party to the unpredictable pace of the courts invites stagnation. Alfred Peter Conteh may not be oblivious to this history.
Also, the circumstances that warranted the constitution of the IGTC, at a time when ward and constituency conventions had not yet been held, are fundamentally different from the present situation, where newly elected ward and constituency executives now possess a clear and legitimate mandate.
The only legitimate voices of the party today are the ward and constituency executives, having renewed their mandates in accordance with the constitution. They cannot be substituted by an interim arrangement that includes persons without a clear mandate from the general membership. Ward and constituency executives should nominate representatives who, together with the Elders Council and under regulatory oversight, can constitute a timebound interim arrangement with a clear mandate to conduct the remaining elections and convene the NDC.
The path forward is clear: the de facto leadership must be prevailed upon to resign, and the Elders Council must work hand in hand with ward and constituency executives to assume custodianship and guide the party toward a time bound convention. This solution respects constitutional order, restores legitimacy, and prepares the APC for the 2028 elections without the shadow of judicial paralysis.
This collective move must be supported by aspiring flagbearers, who must not forget that the flagbearer carries the duty of the National Leader of the party. If they are to lead the APC into 2028, they must begin to demonstrate that trait now—by championing constitutional fidelity, insisting on renewal through a National Delegates Conference, and showing that they can rise above technicalities to safeguard legitimacy. Only then can the APC reclaim its credibility, rebuild unity, and prepare for the future as a democratic institution worthy of national leadership.