By Cornelius Oguntola Melvin Deveaux
The indications are clear that the opposition All People’s Congress will commence the journey to its next National Delegates Conference this weekend.
The 2026 NDC is the most consequential test in years. This journey is not merely another item on the party’s calendar. It is a defining moment that will determine whether the APC can uphold the integrity of its internal democracy and present itself credibly as a government-in-waiting.
On February 19, 2023, the current national executive was elected. This was the first NDC conducted under the party’s 2022 Constitution, following directives from the High Court of Sierra Leone.
This February 19, a few days from today, marks the completion of its three-year tenure. Section 52(a) of the APC 2022 Constitution is clear: “All National Officers of the Party shall hold office for a term of three years and shall be eligible for re-election for another term and no more.”
Yet constitutional provisions must be read holistically. While Section 52(a) defines tenure, Sections 17(d) and 21(i) stipulate that both the national officers and the National Advisory Committee (NAC), the second-highest decision-making body of the party next to a NDC, can only be dissolved at a National Delegates Conference.
In other words, the expiration of tenure does not automatically trigger dissolution. That authority rests solely with the delegates’ conference.
The party constitution, however, remains silent on what happens to the authority of the party between the expiration of the tenure of national officers and their formal dissolution at a National Delegates Conference (NDC).
In retrospect, this gap may explain why the drafters of the constitution entrusted the responsibility of conducting elections to the Internal Elections Management Committee.
Those advocating for the dissolution of the national officers and the installation of an interim arrangement to fill this gap risk provoking a breach of the party’s constitution. Some comrades see it as reintroducing the much-detested “selection clause” through the back door.
On reflection, reaching consensus on who should constitute the interim arrangement would be an endless undertaking, likely resulting in delays to the progression toward the NDC.
Even hypothetically, if the national officers were dissolved, Section 20(a) establishes the NAC as the second-highest decision-making body. Section 21(i) further clarifies that the tenure of NAC members also terminates only upon dissolution at the NDC. This means that the current NAC can still be considered properly constituted beyond February 19 until its dissolution at the NDC.
In my view, continuity of governance is constitutionally preserved until the delegates act.
The expiration of the national officers’ tenure should not be confused with the case of Dr Samura Kamara. The constitution stipulates that if a presidential candidate fails to win an election, he vacates office six months after. If victorious, he continues as National Leader until dissolution at the next NDC, in line with Section 52(a).
This distinction matters. Misinterpreting constitutional provisions risks plunging the party into unnecessary crisis and undermining its credibility at a time when unity is paramount.
This is not a defence of the current executive, nor an endorsement of its leadership.
What the debate on the expiration of tenure reveals are glaring ambiguities and gaps in the constitution—lacunas that demand urgent amendment.
Instead of rushing to the Political Parties Registration Commission (PPRC) and inviting further impediments to the NDC, I believe the APC should channel its energy into meaningful constitutional reform.
There must be clarity regarding both tenure and dissolution. Specifically, an amendment should address what occurs upon the expiration of the tenure of national officers—whether they should remain in a caretaker capacity until formally dissolved, or whether the NAC should be mandated to oversee party administration during this interim period, with limited powers, until new officers are elected.
Such a provision would ensure continuity without undermining democratic legitimacy, which any ad hoc interim arrangement under the current circumstances would inevitably lack.
The constitution must be respected, but it must also evolve. The ambiguities exposed by this debate highlight the need for clarity on tenure, succession, and dissolution. Without serious constitutional reforms at this NDC, the party risks repeating cycles of confusion and conflict that weaken its democratic foundations.
In conclusion, the APC stands at a crossroads. The journey to the 2026 National Delegates Conference is a test of whether the party can rise above internal disputes and demonstrate maturity, discipline, and respect for its own constitution. The stakes are high: the credibility of the APC as a government-in-waiting depends on it.
If the party fails to uphold its constitutional order, it risks eroding public trust and undermining its claim to national leadership. But if it confronts its constitutional ambiguities head-on, amends its flaws, and strengthens its democratic processes, the APC can emerge from this moment not weakened, but renewed.
