By Albert David
The current push for constitutional amendment by the SLPP-led administration has raised profound concerns among citizens, civil society actors, legal scholars, and democratic observers. Many view the move as carrying unmistakable hallmarks of partisan interest, marked by manipulation, opacity, and a troubling disregard for the foundational principles that safeguard democratic governance.
At the heart of the criticism is a simple but powerful truth. Constitutional reform is not a partisan instrument. It is a solemn national process that must be rooted in legality, transparency, broad consultation, and the collective will of the people. When such a process appears rushed, selective, or politically motivated, it undermines public trust and threatens the stability of the democratic order.
Constitutions are not amended to serve the short-term ambitions of any ruling party. They exist to protect citizens, balance power, and ensure that no political actor, regardless of popularity or electoral mandate, can manipulate the system for personal or partisan gain. Critics argue that the current constitutional amendment push appears manipulative, designed to tilt the political landscape in favor of the ruling party. Deceptive, framed as reform while masking deeper partisan objectives. Oppressive, potentially weakening opposition voices, civil society, and independent institutions. Troubling and destabilizing, risking long-term national cohesion, and Undemocratic, bypassing inclusive, transparent, and participatory processes. Such concerns are not trivial. They strike at the core of constitutionalism and the rule of law.
Any constitutional amendment must follow domestic legal procedures and align with international democratic norms. These include transparent public consultations, independent expert review, parliamentary scrutiny free from coercion, civil society participation, media freedom to question and critique, and protection of dissenting voices. When these safeguards are weakened or ignored, the legitimacy of the entire process collapses.
International best practices, from the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, emphasize that constitutional changes must be inclusive, participatory, and free from political manipulation. Anything less risks violating both national and international legal standards.
A critical point raised by democratic observers is that electoral manipulation often begins long before ballots are cast. Structural changes, such as constitutional amendments, electoral laws, or institutional restructuring, can predetermine outcomes by shaping the political environment in ways that favor incumbents. This is why constitutional amendments must be handled with the utmost integrity. When the process is compromised, the entire democratic system becomes vulnerable.
The administration must recognize that constitutional reform is not an opportunity for political engineering. It is a responsibility owed to the nation, not a privilege granted by electoral victory. A credible constitutional amendment process requires Moral integrity, Professional discipline, Institutional independence, Uncompromising respect for democratic norms and Genuine national dialogue. Anything less risks deepening political polarization, eroding public confidence, and undermining national stability.
The concerns surrounding the current amendment push are not merely political disagreements, they are warnings about the health of the nation’s democracy. Sierra Leone’s constitutional framework must remain a shield for all citizens, not a tool for the powerful. The Bio administration has a choice:
pursue constitutional change through transparent, ethical, and inclusive processes, or risk damaging the very democratic foundations it claims to uphold. The people deserve better. The nation deserves better. And democracy demands better.
