Sierra Leone’s President, Julius Maada Bio, has referred a petition concerning the controversial Constitutional Amendment Bill to the Supreme Court, invoking Section 122, subsection 1 of the 1991 Constitution. This action raises crucial questions about the President’s constitutional authority and the legitimacy of Parliament’s passage of the Bill.
Section 122 allows the President to seek judicial opinions on petitions he must decide on, indicating that his approach to the Supreme Court may be constitutionally valid. However, a significant concern remains: whether this referral can postpone the process outlined in Section 106, which mandates that if a President rejects a Bill, it must be returned to Parliament within fourteen days, with justification.
While the President can make referrals, Section 122 does not clarify that this action extends the timeline established in Section 106. The Supreme Court must determine whether Parliament adhered to constitutional processes when approving the amendment. Under Section 108, a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority of all Members of Parliament, not merely those present for the vote. This distinction is vital, as it implies that the Court needs to ascertain if the voting threshold was met.
If the requisite votes were not secured, a pressing question arises: can a Bill lacking the necessary support become valid simply through the President’s signature? It appears the answer should be no, as a constitutional defect prior to the President’s involvement cannot be rectified by his assent.
Additionally, if the amendment alters entrenched provisions, such changes may necessitate a referendum under Section 108. The final version of the Bill passed by Parliament must be scrutinised to assess whether it triggers this requirement.
As the Supreme Court tackles these issues, it faces a significant task that transcends political victories. The Court’s focus should be on upholding the Constitution, answering whether Parliament met required voting thresholds and whether the President’s referral complies with established timelines.
Ultimately, this matter is greater than mere party politics; it concerns the integrity of Sierra Leone’s constitutional framework. The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to clarify the Constitution’s meaning and ensure that no one—including the President or Parliament—is above it. If constitutional reform is needed, it must be pursued through the proper legal channels to maintain the rule of law.
