The Supreme Court of Sierra Leone has struck out an application by the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice seeking to dismiss proceedings challenging Parliament’s handling of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025.
The Government of Sierra Leone had asked the Supreme Court to dismiss three consolidated cases challenging Parliament’s handling of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025, arguing that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter.
In a Notice of Motion dated 16 October 2026, the Law Officers’ Department asked the Court to strike out the cases, which challenge the Speaker of Parliament’s ruling on the passage of the Bill on 10 August 2026.
The application argues that the Court cannot review the validity of the proposed constitutional amendment before it receives presidential assent. It also relies on Section 94(2) of the 1991 Constitution, which the Government says prevents the Court from enquiring into parliamentary proceedings.
The Government further argues that Section 127 of the Constitution does not give the Court jurisdiction to entertain the challenges. It also contends that presidential immunity under Section 48(4) prevents the Court from making orders that would interfere with the President’s constitutional duties.
Chief Justice Komba Kamanda ruled that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the motion, describing the application as an attempt to forestall proceedings after directions had already been issued.
Following the decision, the Chief Justice directed that the substantive constitutional proceedings should continue.
The Court also ruled that it would not entertain further interlocutory applications from counsel involved in the matter. Justice Kamanda said any additional issues raised by the parties would be addressed during the hearing of the substantive case, emphasising the need for a timely determination of the matter.
The cases concern the procedure Parliament followed in passing the 2025 Constitutional Amendment Bill, particularly the interpretation of Sections 91 and 108 of the 1991 Constitution and the requirement for a two-thirds majority to amend constitutional provisions.
The Supreme Court had earlier consolidated the related cases into a single proceeding.
Augustine S. Marah, head of the Lawyers’ Society of Sierra Leone, welcomed the Court’s decision, describing it as an important step towards ensuring that the substantive constitutional questions are heard.
The case is expected to clarify the constitutional requirements for amending provisions of Sierra Leone’s 1991 Constitution and the extent of judicial oversight over the parliamentary amendment process.