By Alpha Amadu Jalloh
A constitution is far more than a legal document. It is the highest expression of the relationship between the State and its citizens. Governments are elected for limited periods, political parties rise and fall, presidents eventually leave office, but a constitution is intended to outlive them all. It represents the collective aspirations of a nation and establishes the limits within which power may be exercised. Every amendment to such a document must therefore be approached with the greatest care because constitutional changes shape not only the present generation but those yet unborn.
Sierra Leone’s constitutional journey has been long and complex. From the constitutional arrangements introduced during British colonial rule in the nineteenth century to the 1924 Constitution, the 1951 Constitution, the Independence Constitution of 1961, the Republican Constitution of 1971, the One Party Constitution of 1978 and finally the 1991 Constitution, each generation has attempted to redefine the relationship between authority, democracy and the rule of law. Some constitutional reforms expanded democratic freedoms while others concentrated political authority. Those experiences provide valuable lessons for every amendment proposed today.
The Constitution of Sierra Leone, 1991, begins with an important declaration. Section 5 states that “This Constitution shall be the supreme law of Sierra Leone.” It further provides that any other law found to be inconsistent with the Constitution shall be void to the extent of that inconsistency. This supremacy clause establishes the benchmark against which every constitutional amendment must be measured. The central question is not whether an amendment benefits a government or an opposition party. The real question is whether it strengthens constitutional democracy and protects the rights of future generations.
The Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025 proposes significant changes affecting the Electoral Commission, political parties, elections, qualifications for public office and other constitutional institutions. Constitutional reform is not in itself objectionable. Every living constitution should be capable of evolving to meet changing national circumstances. However, reforms should be guided by principles rather than political expediency. They should strengthen institutions instead of personalities, deepen democracy instead of narrowing political space and reinforce public confidence instead of creating suspicion.
One of the enduring lessons from Sierra Leone’s constitutional history is that excessive concentration of power has rarely served the nation well. The 1978 Constitution introduced the one party system with the justification that it would promote national unity and political stability. Instead, it weakened democratic competition and reduced institutional accountability. When Sierra Leone adopted the 1991 Constitution, it deliberately restored multiparty democracy and re established constitutional checks and balances because experience had demonstrated the dangers of allowing too much authority to accumulate in too few hands.
The Independence Constitution of 1961 described Sierra Leone as “a sovereign democratic State.” That simple phrase carried profound constitutional significance. It recognised that sovereignty belonged to the people and that governments exercised authority only on behalf of the nation. Every constitutional amendment should therefore reinforce that democratic principle rather than weaken it.
The first concern arising from the 2025 Amendment Bill is not necessarily any individual provision in isolation but the cumulative effect of multiple amendments introduced at the same time. Constitutional lawyers often warn that amendments should never be examined independently of one another. A seemingly minor amendment may appear harmless on its own but when combined with several others affecting elections, Parliament, political parties and constitutional commissions, the overall balance of power may change significantly. The Constitution is an integrated framework in which every institution performs a distinct role. Altering one component inevitably affects the others.
Another important constitutional principle is institutional independence. Bodies responsible for elections, political party regulation and public accountability must be insulated from political influence if public confidence is to be maintained. Democracy depends not only upon free elections but also upon public belief that those elections are administered impartially. Even where no actual interference exists, constitutional arrangements should avoid creating any perception that important institutions are subject to executive influence.
This leads to another fundamental principle of constitutional reform. Constitutions should never be amended solely because a government possesses the parliamentary numbers necessary to do so. Constitutional legitimacy comes not only from legal procedure but also from public acceptance. The best constitutional reforms throughout democratic history have emerged from broad consultation involving political parties, civil society, religious leaders, traditional authorities, professional organisations, academics and ordinary citizens. A constitution belongs to the people and should therefore reflect the widest possible national consensus.
The Amendment Bill must therefore be assessed against three simple but important questions. Does it strengthen democracy? Does it protect institutional independence? Does it increase public confidence in constitutional governance? If any amendment fails these tests, Parliament should reconsider it regardless of its political popularity.
My own view is that constitutional amendments should always err on the side of protecting democratic institutions rather than expanding governmental authority. Governments are temporary. Constitutions are intended to endure. Every amendment should therefore leave future generations with stronger institutions than those inherited from previous generations.
The Constitution should never become an instrument through which political advantage is secured. It should remain the impartial guardian of every citizen regardless of political affiliation, ethnicity, religion or region. That has been the aspiration running through Sierra Leone’s constitutional development from the colonial period to the present day, even if successive governments have not always lived up to that ideal.
In Part II, I will begin a detailed examination of the proposed amendment to Section 32 relating to the Electoral Commission, comparing it with previous constitutional provisions and identifying the legal strengths, constitutional weaknesses and recommendations for improvement.