50+1 Presidential Threshold Absent from CRC and Tripartite Reports — NEW Chairperson Challenges Government
By Kelvin Jay
The Chairperson of the National Elections Watch (NEW), Marcella Samba Sesay, has raised serious concerns over the proposed 50+1 presidential threshold contained in the Constitutional Amendment Bill, stating that the provision is neither reflected in the Constitutional Review Committee (CRC) Report nor in the Tripartite Committee recommendations.
Speaking during a public engagement on the proposed constitutional amendments, Sesay described the inclusion of the 50+1 Presidential threshold as non-consultative, questioning the basis upon which the government arrived at the figure.
“This clause in the Amendment Bill that deals with the Presidential threshold of 50+1 is not consultative. It is not in the CRC Report, neither is it in the Tripartite Report,” she stated, while challenging the government to explain the source of the provision.
She explained that the 1991 Constitution stipulates a 55% threshold of valid votes cast for a presidential candidate to be declared winner in the first round of elections. Where no candidate meets this requirement, the Constitution provides for a second round in which a simple majority determines the winner.
According to Sesay, the CRC Report did not recommend any change to the 55% Presidential threshold. She further noted that while the Tripartite Committee recommendations restated the 55% requirement, Recommendation 53 proposed a different model—50+1 of the national vote, coupled with a requirement that the winning candidate secures at least 25% of valid votes in half of the country’s districts, amounting to 16 districts nationwide.
However, she pointed out that the current Constitutional Amendment Bill departs significantly from both reports by proposing a 50+1 threshold combined with an additional requirement of securing 20% of votes across selected districts.
Sesay questioned the rationale behind this calculation, noting that the 20% requirement appears to be drawn from 11 districts out of the country’s 16 districts, without any clear justification.
“What informed this figure? Why 11 districts? Who was consulted, and how was this formula arrived at?” she asked, calling on the Office of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice to provide clarity to the public.
She concluded that the proposed 50+1 presidential threshold, as framed in the Amendment Bill, is overly complex and risks creating further confusion rather than resolving concerns associated with the existing 55 percent requirement.
“The 50+1 proposal, in its current form, does not solve the problem of the 55% threshold. Instead, it introduces new complexities into the electoral process,” Sesay warned.
