By Cornelius Oguntola Melvin Deveaux
Beyond the theatrics of the constitutional amendments recently passed in Parliament lies an insidious machination: the Political Parties Regulation Commission’s (PPRC) maneuvers and regulatory interventions now shaping the trajectory of Sierra Leone’s largest opposition party.
The PPRC issued a press release that, in effect, aided and abetted the violation of the All People’s Congress (APC) constitution to the advantage of an executive that continues to govern seven months after the expiration of its tenure. The release extends the continuity of the executive indefinitely, pending the determination of the Alieu Suma matter by the High Court.
What raises eyebrows is not only the substance of the ruling but also its form. The press release was signed by the Director of Public Education and ICT rather than by the Chairman or Executive Secretary. For a decision of such regulatory weight, this procedural irregularity signals institutional manipulation and undermines confidence among party members in the Commission’s authority and fair dealing.
The greater danger, however, is that the PPRC has acted far beyond its legal mandate. Section 39(5) of the Political Parties Act, 2022 permits only a single sixmonth extension of a party executive’s mandate. That provision was rightly invoked earlier this year. But the Commission’s decision to perpetually extend tenure beyond the mandatory six months is ultra vires—illegal, unconstitutional, and corrosive to democracy.
The APC leadership, having overstayed its mandate, is now a de facto executive without locus standi. Its continued occupation of office diminishes the party’s credibility, weakens our challenge to constitutional violations, and erodes the moral authority of the movement. An opposition leadership without legitimacy cannot persuasively contest illegitimacy elsewhere, nor can it hold government accountable.
Equally troubling is the PPRC’s earlier expressed intention to hand over the leadership of the party to the Leader of the APC Parliamentary Group. This is a move outside its mandate.
The APC Constitution draws a clear line between organs vested with national leadership authority and those confined to specific functions. The Elders’ Council, established under Article 25, is a constitutional organ mandated to safeguard party traditions, mediate disputes, and provide continuity in times of leadership vacuum. Its authority flows directly from the Constitution, making it the legitimate body to intervene when executive mandates expire without a National Delegates Conference.
By contrast, the Parliamentary Group, created under Article 29, is strictly a legislative caucus, with its Leader empowered only to coordinate parliamentary affairs and represent the Party’s positions in legislative debates. Crucially, neither Article 46 nor Article 47 lists the Parliamentary Leader among the national officers of the Party, nor does the Constitution assign that office any role in the national leadership structure. The Parliamentary Leader’s authority is confined to parliamentary business and does not extend to mediation, interim leadership, or executive functions at the national level.
It follows, therefore, that any attempt by the PPRC to elevate the Parliamentary Leader into a national leadership position or to constitute the Group as an interim executive is ultra vires—beyond its statutory remit, unconstitutional, and a direct violation of the APC’s internal governance framework. The Elders’ Council, not the Parliamentary Group, is the organ constitutionally empowered to safeguard continuity and legitimacy in moments of uncertainty.
Against this backdrop stands Alieu Suma, the APC Port Loko District Chairman, who has petitioned the High Court against both the APC and the PPRC. His prayers seek judicial relief on constitutional ambiguities surrounding tenure expiration, extensions, and the dissolution of party organs. In essence, Suma challenges the legality of the PPRC’s initial sixmonth extension and demands clarity on whether expired mandates can continue without convening a National Delegates Conference (NDC).
The petition is a stark reminder of how internal strife can be fueled by members who have compromised with the ruling party, placing personal ambition above collective survival. Suma’s plan was aided by de facto chairman Osman Foday Yansaneh. His failure to inform the party’s lawyers of the court filing ensured the executive benefited, raising serious questions of accountability. He is the greatest beneficiary of this unwarranted extension, underscoring his complicity.
Experience teaches us that the courts are not a good friend of the APC. The prolonged and incomplete matters still sitting in the judgments of Justices Fisher and Hannah Bonnie weakened the party’s preparedness ahead of the 2023 elections and left us disorganized at a critical moment. What we are witnessing now is possibly a replay of those same events, judicial entanglements that crippled the party before 2023, threatening to derail organizational readiness once again as 2028 approaches.
Yet Suma’s posture invites scrutiny. If he were morally consistent in his opposition to the extension, he might have resigned his position as District Chairman to demonstrate principle. Instead, he remains in office while simultaneously contesting the legitimacy of the PPRC’s extension of executive’s tenure. An extension he is benefiting from.
Moreover, the APC Constitution provides internal grievance mechanisms that he could have explored before resorting to litigation. Ordinary members who bypass such mechanisms are often accused of antiparty activities; Suma’s case highlights a troubling double standard. His close association with the de facto chairman, who benefits from the extension occasioned by the court matter, and one of the major flag-bearers, further complicates the picture.
Dragging the party once again into court, particularly as the party moves toward its National Delegates Conference and with the 2028 elections looming, is politically perilous. Litigation risks further fragmentation, delays in organizational preparedness, and the erosion of public confidence. For a party already grappling with unresolved constitutional disputes, judicial entanglement may prove suicidal.
The APC stands at a decisive crossroads. We must end the tenure of this de facto executive, reclaim constitutional legitimacy, and resolve disputes through our own organs: the Elders’ Council and the National Delegates Conference. This is not merely internal housekeeping; it is a demonstration of readiness to win in 2028.
Let this be clear: the PPRC’s perpetual extension must be challenged, resisted, and overturned. Our survival as a credible opposition depends on it. If we fail to act now, we risk entering the 2028 elections crippled by illegitimacy and division. But if we rise to the challenge, restore order, and assert our constitutional rights, we will stand united, prepared, and unstoppable.
Above all, this is the moment for every member, leaders, aspirants, and grassroots alike, to put aside ego, personal ambition, and flagbearer interests. Unity under the Elders’ Council is not optional; it is the only path to survival and victory.
