By Alpha Amadu Jalloh
The Constitution of Sierra Leone is not merely another Act of Parliament. It is the supreme law of the Republic, the legal and moral covenant between the State and its citizens. Every public office derives its authority from it. Every institution operates within its limits. Every citizen enjoys rights because it guarantees them. Such a document cannot be amended lightly, nor should it be altered solely by the votes of Members of Parliament when the Constitution itself requires the direct approval of the people.
The Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025 has generated significant national debate because it proposes changes affecting some of the country’s most important democratic institutions. It touches the Electoral Commission, the Political Parties Regulation Commission, Parliament, presidential elections and other constitutional provisions that shape how power is exercised within the Republic. These are not routine legislative amendments. They are proposals that seek to redefine the constitutional architecture of the nation.
Throughout this analysis, I have examined the proposed amendments individually and collectively. Some of the reforms appear intended to modernise institutions, improve administrative efficiency and strengthen constitutional governance. Others raise legitimate constitutional concerns regarding institutional independence, executive influence, transparency and democratic accountability. Regardless of whether one supports or opposes the Bill, one principle should unite every Sierra Leonean. The Constitution belongs to the people.
That principle is not merely political philosophy. It is embedded in the constitutional order established by the 1991 Constitution. The Constitution recognises that certain provisions are so fundamental to the democratic character of the Republic that they cannot be amended by Parliament acting alone. Those entrenched provisions require approval through a national referendum before they can become part of the supreme law of Sierra Leone.
If the amendments contained in this Bill affect entrenched provisions that the 1991 Constitution requires to be approved by referendum, then that constitutional process must be followed faithfully. Parliament should debate the Bill. Parliament should scrutinise every clause. Parliament should vote on the proposals. But Parliament should not substitute its own will for that of the people where the Constitution expressly requires the people’s direct consent.
This is not an argument against constitutional reform. Constitutions are living instruments that must evolve with society. New democratic realities, technological developments and institutional experience often require constitutional improvement. Refusing to amend a constitution simply because it has existed for many years is neither wise nor democratic.
The question is not whether the Constitution should be amended.
The question is who should possess the final constitutional authority to approve those amendments.
The answer provided by the Constitution itself is clear whenever entrenched provisions are involved. The final authority belongs to the people.
Some may argue that Members of Parliament already represent the people and that parliamentary approval should therefore be sufficient. While Members of Parliament are indeed elected representatives, representative democracy and direct constitutional sovereignty are not identical concepts. The Constitution deliberately distinguishes between ordinary legislation and amendments affecting its most fundamental provisions. That distinction exists for a reason.
Governments change.
Parliaments change.
Political majorities change.
The Constitution endures.
It is precisely because constitutions outlive governments that the people themselves must retain the ultimate authority over their most fundamental provisions.
A referendum should never be viewed as an inconvenience or an unnecessary delay. It is one of the purest expressions of democracy. It allows every eligible citizen, regardless of political affiliation, region, ethnicity, religion or economic status, to participate directly in determining the constitutional future of the Republic.
Such participation strengthens legitimacy.
If the people vote to approve the amendments, the Constitution will carry the unmistakable authority of popular consent. The Government will be able to say that the reforms were not imposed by politicians but endorsed by the citizens themselves.
If the people reject the amendments, that verdict should be respected with equal constitutional commitment. Democracy is not measured by how often governments win. Democracy is measured by whether governments respect the constitutional choices made by the people.
History offers valuable lessons.
Sierra Leone’s constitutional journey has passed through colonial administration, Independence in 1961, republican status in 1971, the one party Constitution of 1978 and the restoration of multiparty constitutional democracy through the 1991 Constitution. Each constitutional transition reflected an attempt to improve governance, although not every constitutional experiment produced the intended results.
One lesson emerges consistently from that history.
The wider the public participation in constitutional development, the stronger the constitutional legitimacy.
The narrower the participation, the greater the risk that constitutional reform becomes associated with temporary political interests rather than enduring national principles.
That is why this Amendment Bill should not become another chapter in partisan political competition. It should become an opportunity for national constitutional dialogue. Every district, every chiefdom, every university, every professional body, every religious organisation, every traditional authority and every citizen should have the opportunity to understand the proposed amendments before exercising their constitutional right to approve or reject them through a referendum where the Constitution requires one.
No government should fear the judgement of its own people.
No Parliament should hesitate to place constitutional questions before the citizens whose sovereignty it represents.
No democracy should be uncomfortable with allowing its people to speak directly on matters affecting the supreme law of the land.
Indeed, confidence in the Bill should make a referendum more attractive, not less. If the proposed amendments genuinely strengthen democracy, improve governance and enjoy broad national support, then a referendum will confirm that public confidence and provide the amendments with an authority that no parliamentary majority alone can achieve.
The Constitution was not written for politicians.
It was written for farmers in Kailahun.
It was written for fishermen in Tombo.
It was written for traders in Makeni.
It was written for teachers in Bo.
It was written for students in Freetown.
It was written for miners in Kono.
It was written for every Sierra Leonean whose future depends upon the strength of democratic institutions and the rule of law.
The Constitution therefore belongs equally to every citizen.
For that reason, I respectfully call upon Parliament to honour both the letter and the spirit of the 1991 Constitution. Where the Constitution requires a referendum for entrenched provisions, that requirement should not be viewed as a procedural technicality. It should be embraced as the highest expression of democratic legitimacy.
Let Parliament perform its constitutional responsibility.
Then let the people perform theirs.
A Constitution derives its greatest strength not from the number of votes cast within Parliament, but from the confidence of the citizens who choose to live under it.
If this Amendment Bill truly represents constitutional progress, let it be tested before the court of public opinion through a free, fair and transparent national referendum.
The final verdict on the supreme law of Sierra Leone should belong to the supreme authority in Sierra Leone.
The people.