By Zacharia Dainkeh Esq.,
The defence of Article 56(b) of the APC Constitution, which mandates a five-year membership for Presidential aspirants, continues to rely on a flawed premise: that a political party’s internal rules exist in a legal vacuum, separate from the mandates of the national Constitution. This position is not only legally untenable but ignores the unique constitutional architecture of Sierra Leone itself.
A recent opinion on this matter provides the critical lens through which this issue must be viewed. It correctly states that while many constitutions like those of the US and UK are silent on parties, “Here in Sierra Leone similar recognition has been given to political parties, not only in the Constitution but also by the PPRC Act.” This is the heart of the matter. We are not the US or the UK; we are a nation with a supreme Constitution that explicitly integrates political parties into our democratic framework and subjects them to its authority.
Therefore, the argument is settled by our own fundamental law. Section 35(2) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone, 1991, is unequivocal:
“the internal organisation of a political party shall conform to democratic principles, and its aims, objectives, purposes and programmes shall not contravene, or be inconsistent with, any provisions of this Constitution.”
This provision dismantles the argument for the five-year rule on two decisive fronts:
It Directly Prohibits Inconsistency with Any Constitutional Provision. The Constitution sets the qualifications for the presidency in Section 41. It states a person must “be a member of a Political Party.” It does not state they must be a member for five years, ten years, or one day. By adding a requirement that the supreme law does not, Article 56(b) of the APC constitution creates a clear and direct inconsistency. By the explicit command of Section 35(2), any such inconsistency renders the party rule void. The constitutional provisions must prevail.
It Mandates that Internal Organization Must Conform to Democratic Principles. A rule that bars a segment of a party’s own membership, regardless of their talent, vision, or popular support from seeking its highest office based solely on a temporal threshold is the antithesis of a democratic principle. It is an exclusionary, entrenching mechanism that stifles internal competition and renewal. True democratic principles encourage a open and meritocratic contest of ideas, not the artificial narrowing of the field to protect incumbency. The five-year rule fails this test mandated by the Constitution itself.
The opinion is thus correct: “political parties in Sierra Leone are not at liberty to do as they please: everything they do must be consonant with our fundamental law.” The APC cannot hide behind the concept of a “private organisation” when the Constitution itself has chosen to regulate its internal conduct. Our role in “framing the political will of the people” is a public trust, exercised within a constitutional framework.
This is not a theoretical debate. Our own history proves the rule is unnecessary and counterproductive. This very provision would have excluded the founders of the APC and key leaders like Siaka Stevens and Ernest Bai Koroma at critical junctures in our party’s history. It is a rule that protects against the very dynamism that has defined our greatest successes.
Furthermore, retaining this rule is an act of profound political risk. It places a ticking legal time bomb within our constitution. Any aspirant rightfully barred by this rule would have a compelling case to challenge it at the PPRC and the Supreme Court, not on a vague principle, but on the specific grounds of violating Sections 35(2) and 41 of the national Constitution. The potential for our entire candidate selection process to be invalidated on the eve of an election is a risk we cannot responsibly take.
Conclusion:
The debate is over. The five-year membership rule in Article 56(b) is unconstitutional. It is inconsistent with Section 41 of the Constitution and fails to conform to the democratic principles required by Section 35(2).
The path forward is not to continue a circular debate but to initiate a correction. For the sake of the party’s legality, its democratic integrity, and its electoral security, this provision must be amended to align with the supreme law of the land. To do anything less is to willfully disregard the Constitution that binds us all.
Respectfully,
Zacharia Dainkeh Esq.
Law LLB (Hons), LLM, BL.
Member of the All Peoples Congress
Freetown.
