The question now confronting Sierra Leone is no longer simply whether the Constitutional Amendment Bill should become law. The bigger question is whether President Julius Maada Bio should assent to the Bill while serious constitutional questions surrounding its passage remain unresolved.
Parliament approved the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025, on August 10, 2026, after a highly contentious sitting that saw opposition lawmakers walk out of Parliament. At the centre of the dispute is whether the constitutional requirement for a two-thirds majority was properly satisfied during the parliamentary process.
The controversy has now moved beyond Parliament.
There are growing calls for the Supreme Court to provide an authoritative interpretation of the constitutional questions arising from the process. Legal voices have questioned the validity of the Bill’s passage, while the Sierra Leone Labour Congress has urged President Bio not to assent to it.
Against this background, the President faces a historic decision.
Will President Bio sign the Bill, or will he withhold his assent until the constitutional controversy is settled?
At the time of writing, there is no confirmed public announcement that President Bio has assented to the Bill. Therefore, speculation should not be presented as fact.
But the President’s decision will carry consequences far beyond his current administration.
President Bio has already publicly supported the proposed constitutional reforms. In his address ahead of Parliament’s vote, he urged lawmakers to support the Bill and argued that the reforms were necessary for Sierra Leone’s democratic and institutional development.
That position makes the next step particularly important.
If the President assents to the Bill while the procedural dispute remains before the courts or continues to attract serious constitutional objections, critics could argue that the Executive has prioritised political expediency over constitutional certainty.
On the other hand, if the President chooses to withhold assent and allows the Supreme Court to clarify the disputed constitutional questions first, he could demonstrate that constitutional governance is more important than political victory.
That would not necessarily mean abandoning the reform agenda.
Indeed, there is a compelling argument that President Bio can support constitutional reform while simultaneously insisting that the reform process must be beyond legal doubt.
This is where presidential leadership matters.
A President is not merely the leader of a political party. He is the Head of State and a guardian of the constitutional order. Every decision taken in relation to the Constitution therefore carries a national responsibility.
The proposed amendments themselves have generated intense political debate. Among the controversial issues is the proposed change to the presidential electoral threshold from the current 55 percent requirement to 50 percent plus one vote, alongside other electoral and governance reforms.
Supporters argue that the reforms could strengthen political inclusion and modernise the country’s democratic framework. Government officials have described the wider reform programme as part of an effort to move Sierra Leone toward a more effective and prosperous constitutional order.
Critics, however, fear that some changes could have political consequences, particularly ahead of the 2028 elections.
This is why the process matters as much as the substance.
Even a good constitutional amendment can lose public confidence if citizens believe that the procedure used to pass it was flawed.
Sierra Leone does not need a Constitution whose legitimacy is permanently questioned.
It needs a Constitution that both government and opposition can defend.
It needs a constitutional framework that survives changes in political leadership.
And it needs institutions that demonstrate that no political party, regardless of its parliamentary strength, is above the Constitution.
Our position is therefore straightforward:
President Bio should not rush to sign the Bill.
He should allow the constitutional questions surrounding its passage to be properly clarified through the appropriate legal and institutional channels.
If the Supreme Court determines that the parliamentary process complied with the Constitution, the President can proceed with greater confidence.
If the Court identifies constitutional defects, Parliament can correct them.
Either way, Sierra Leone wins.
This approach should not be interpreted as opposition to constitutional reform. On the contrary, it is a call for better, stronger and more legitimate constitutional reform.
The President has an opportunity to demonstrate that his commitment to constitutional democracy extends beyond the passage of legislation supported by his government.
He can demonstrate that the rule of law comes before political convenience.
He can demonstrate that the Constitution is bigger than the SLPP.
He can demonstrate that the Constitution is bigger than the APC.
And, most importantly, he can demonstrate that the Constitution is bigger than President Julius Maada Bio.
The President’s decision will therefore be remembered.
If he signs, history will ask whether he acted after satisfying himself that every constitutional requirement had been met.
If he withholds assent pending judicial clarification, history may instead record that, at a critical moment, he chose constitutional certainty over political speed.
For Sierra Leone, this is not merely about one Bill.
It is about the kind of democracy we want to leave for the next generation.
President Bio has the pen. The Constitution has the final authority.
Let the Constitution speak first.