Former SLPP Secretary General Challenges Speaker’s Authority to Refer Constitutional Amendment Dispute to Supreme Court

By Kelvin Jay

Former Secretary General of the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) and veteran legal practitioner, Sulaiman Banja Tejan-Sie, has challenged the constitutional authority of the Speaker of Parliament, Hon. Segepoh Solomon Thomas, to refer the disputed Constitutional Amendment Bill to the Supreme Court for interpretation.

Speaking on the ongoing controversy surrounding the passage of the Constitutional Amendment Bill, Tejan-Sie argued that there is no provision in the 1991 Constitution that expressly empowers the Speaker to refer a parliamentary matter to the Supreme Court for interpretation.

“There is no section in the Constitution that gives the Speaker the power to refer a matter to the Supreme Court for interpretation. I don’t know where the Speaker derives that power from. The Constitution only gives the President that power, as stipulated in Section 122 of the 1991 Constitution,” he said.

Tejan-Sie further argued that before a constitutional question can properly be referred to the Supreme Court, the person making the referral must have the requisite constitutional authority, which, in his view, the Speaker does not possess in this instance.

He maintained that the controversy stems from the manner in which the Constitutional Amendment Bill was passed, arguing that the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority under Section 108 was not satisfied.

According to him, Parliament’s primary responsibility is to make laws, while the judiciary is responsible for interpreting the law. He said the separation of powers between the legislature, executive and judiciary is designed to provide checks and balances within the governance system.

Private legal practitioner ChukuEmeka Taylor has cautioned against describing the Speaker’s actions as treason at this stage.

Taylor argued that the Constitution has not yet been altered because the President has not assented to the Bill. However, he agreed that any constitutional amendment must comply with the requirements of Section 108 of the 1991 Constitution.

He contended that, in his view, the Speaker acted ultra vires the relevant provisions of Section 108 and that the Bill should not have been passed because the parliamentary process was constitutionally flawed.

Taylor also criticized the decision by APC MPs to walk out of Parliament during the Committee Stage. He argued that the opposition lawmakers should have remained in the chamber and continued challenging the Bill through to the Third Reading, where the final vote would be taken.

“When the APC walked out at the Committee Stage, it kind of offended the process. They should have remained part of the process and argued their position until the Third Reading,” he said.

Taylor maintained that the absence of the opposition MPs subsequently made it easier for the SLPP parliamentary majority to proceed with other matters without dissent.

Osman Abdul Timbo has challenged claims that no vote was conducted during the Second Reading of the Constitutional Amendment Bill.

According to Timbo, a vote was taken through a collection of voices, which he said is permitted under the Standing Orders of Parliament.

“The Second Reading is where we debated the entire Bill. We voted at the Second Reading stage for the Bill to proceed, but we raised contentious issues and opposed its passage,” Timbo explained.

However, he criticized the Speaker’s decision to approve the constitutional amendment through a simple majority, arguing that Section 108 requires a two-thirds majority for constitutional amendments.

Timbo also referred to an earlier ruling concerning the removal of the Attorney-General, arguing that the Speaker had previously ruled that a simple majority was sufficient. He suggested that this earlier interpretation may have influenced the Speaker’s subsequent decision on the Constitutional Amendment Bill.

Describing the proceedings as a “comedy of errors,” Timbo argued that the Bill remains within the parliamentary process.

He further maintained that if the President assents to the Bill in its current controversial form, those involved in the process could potentially face serious legal consequences. He referred to the legal principle of participatio criminis in making his argument.

Timbo also questioned a statement published on Parliament’s official Facebook page asserting that the Speaker’s ruling is sacrosanct and cannot be inquired into by any court. He cited Section 171(13) of the Constitution in support of his argument that rulings made by the Speaker may be subject to judicial scrutiny.

Legal practitioner Emmanuel Saffa Abdulai, Esq., has also urged caution over the use of the term “treason” in describing the Speaker’s decision.

Abdulai described the Speaker’s action as a procedural mistake rather than an act that should immediately be characterized as treason.

“We should not be hasty to describe the Speaker’s action as a treason. It is a procedural mistake,” he said.

Abdulai further argued that the controversy demonstrates the dangers of attempting to amend the Constitution in piecemeal.

He also criticized the APC MPs for walking out of Parliament, saying their decision was not appropriate and that they should have remained part of the parliamentary process.

“It wasn’t right for the APC MPs to walk out of Parliament,” he added.

Another legal commentator, Eleanor Thompson, has raised questions about the procedure followed during the Second Reading of the Bill.

Thompson acknowledged that a vote was taken through a collection of voices but questioned whether such a method could establish the numerical requirement needed to demonstrate a two-thirds majority.

“Yes, they took a vote at the Second Reading and the vote was by collection of voices, but you cannot determine a two-thirds vote through the collection of voices. You cannot get quantitative data through a qualitative process,” she argued.

She therefore questioned whether the constitutional requirements were properly satisfied before the Bill proceeded to the Committee Stage.

Thompson maintained that constitutional amendments must comply strictly with Section 108 and cautioned against confusing the different stages of the parliamentary process with the stages at which the constitutionally required votes must be established.

She also referred to arguments reportedly advanced by APC MP Hon. Daniel Koroma during the parliamentary debate, as well as concerns raised by APC Leader Hon. Abdul Kargbo, which she said prompted the Speaker to order a vote during the Committee Stage.

The competing legal and political interpretations have intensified the national debate over whether Parliament followed the constitutional and procedural requirements in processing the Constitutional Amendment Bill.

At the centre of the controversy are questions surrounding Section 108 of the 1991 Constitution, the required two-thirds voting threshold for constitutional amendments, the Speaker’s authority to refer parliamentary matters to the Supreme Court, the procedure followed during the various stages of the Bill, and the extent to which parliamentary rulings may be subjected to judicial scrutiny.