The ongoing dispute over Parliament’s handling of the Constitutional Amendment Bill has intensified, with SLPP Member of Parliament Hon. Hindolo Moiwo Gevao defending the legislature’s authority to proceed with its business despite a walkout by opposition APC lawmakers.
Gevao rejected arguments that the departure of APC MPs rendered Parliament incapable of continuing with the proceedings. He maintained that the Constitution provides for a parliamentary quorum and that the presence of the required number of Members of Parliament gives the House the legal basis to conduct its business.
According to the SLPP lawmaker, Parliament has 149 Members, and the House retained the necessary quorum even after APC MPs left the chamber in protest against a ruling by the Speaker concerning the Constitutional Amendment Bill.
He therefore argued that the proceedings conducted after the walkout remained within the constitutional mandate of Parliament, insisting that the absence of some lawmakers did not automatically invalidate the sitting.
Gevao further sought to clarify his position by referring to the number of Members he said were officially present and eligible for the relevant calculation. He stated that 146 Members were considered for the calculation after three APC MPs were absent, while the 97 Members who remained represented the required two-thirds threshold.
His interpretation, however, has become a major point of disagreement in the wider constitutional amendment controversy. Political actors on opposing sides have challenged both the threshold being applied and the method used to determine the number of Members required for the passage of the proposed amendment.
The disagreement has consequently shifted beyond the substance of the Constitutional Amendment Bill to questions surrounding parliamentary procedure, quorum and the constitutional powers of the Speaker and Parliament.
While Gevao maintains that Parliament had sufficient numbers to continue its proceedings, opponents argue that the circumstances surrounding the walkout raise important constitutional questions that require further scrutiny.
The controversy is expected to remain a significant issue in Sierra Leone’s political and constitutional debate as stakeholders continue to examine whether the parliamentary process followed in considering the amendment fully complied with the Constitution.
At the centre of the dispute is the question of whether the number of lawmakers remaining in the chamber was sufficient for Parliament to validly proceed and, ultimately, take decisions on the proposed constitutional changes.
Gevao’s defence represents the governing SLPP’s position that Parliament retained its authority to conduct business, while the opposition’s objections continue to place the Speaker’s ruling and the subsequent proceedings under intense political and legal scrutiny.