14-Day Period Elapses for Presidential Assent on Constitutional Amendments Bill… Will Bio Send It Back to Parliament or Sign It?

By Kelvin Jay

The fourteen-day constitutional period which President Julius Maada Bio is expected to take action on the controversial Constitutional Amendments Bill has elapsed, raising fresh legal and political questions over the next course of action.

At the centre of the debate is Section 106(7) of Sierra Leone’s 1991 Constitution, which provides that where the President refuses to sign a Bill passed by Parliament, the unsigned Bill must be returned to Parliament within fourteen days, accompanied by reasons for the refusal.

Section 106(7) of the 1991 Constitution states:

“Where a Bill has been passed by Parliament but the President refuses to sign it, the President shall within fourteen days of the presentation of the Bill for his signature cause the unsigned Bill to be returned to Parliament giving reasons for his refusal.”

The constitutional provision is intended to promote accountability and transparency between the Executive and Legislative arms of Government while clearly defining the procedure to be followed when the President declines to append his signature to legislation passed by Parliament.

JFK Raises Constitutional Questions

Speaking on the matter, former Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara (JFK), said his understanding of the Constitution is that where the President refuses to sign a Bill, it must be returned to Parliament.

“What I have noticed in Section 106(7) is that after 14 days of the presentation of the Bill to the President, if it has not been signed, then the Bill must be returned to Parliament,” he stated.

JFK said he was uncertain about how the Government would interpret the present situation surrounding the Constitutional Amendments Bill, which is yet to receive Presidential assent despite the expiration of the fourteen-day period.

According to him, since Presidential assent has not been given within the stipulated timeframe, the Bill appears to have entered what he described as a “default position,” thereby requiring Parliament to take charge of the matter.

The former Attorney General also commented on the position of the All People’s Congress (APC), revealing that the party has filed a matter before the Supreme Court seeking an interpretation of Sections 108 and 91 of the 1991 Constitution.

He further criticised the decision taken by the Speaker of Parliament during the passage of the Bill, describing it as erroneous, while defending the APC’s decision to walk out of Parliament during the proceedings.

According to JFK, had the APC remained in Parliament and voted against the Bill, the party’s position should not have been determined merely through a headcount, arguing that the constitutional requirement relating to the passage of constitutional amendments demands a higher threshold.

He maintained that the requirement for a two-thirds majority is specifically applicable to constitutional amendments and should therefore have been strictly observed.

Banja Sie Warns President Bio

JFK’s position has resonated with former SLPP Secretary General and veteran lawyer, Sulaiman Banja Sie, who has also argued that the Speaker of Parliament erred in his handling of the matter.

Banja Sie reportedly cautioned President Bio against appending his signature to the Bill, amid growing concerns from legal practitioners and other stakeholders over the constitutionality of the process leading to its passage.

Whether President Bio has heeded the advice of these prominent legal minds remains unclear.

However, SLPP Public Relations Officer Moses Mambu recently stated that President Bio would append his signature to the Bill soon.

Supporters of the Constitutional Amendments Bill have maintained that due process was followed during its passage in Parliament. However, critics and independent legal minds have continued to raise concerns, particularly over whether the provisions of Section 108 of the Constitution should have taken precedence in determining the procedure and threshold required for its passage.

The controversy has further deepened following concerns reportedly raised by the Inter-Religious Council and the Sierra Leone Labour Congress, both of which have cautioned President Bio against signing the Bill.

The Ball Now in Bio’s Court

The controversy surrounding the Constitutional Amendments Bill therefore appears far from over.

With the fourteen-day period now becoming a subject of intense public and legal debate, attention has shifted squarely to President Bio and the decision he will take.

Will the President return the Bill to Parliament in line with Section 106(7), accompanied by reasons for withholding his assent? Or will he proceed to append his signature despite the concerns raised by opposition politicians, legal practitioners, civil society groups and other stakeholders?

The answer could have far-reaching implications for Sierra Leone’s constitutional democracy and political future.

For now, the buck stops with President Bio.

All eyes are firmly fixed on State House as the nation awaits what could become one of the most consequential constitutional decisions of his presidency.

The ball is now in President Bio’s court—to rise above political pressure, exercise wisdom and put the national interest first.