The Supreme Court of Sierra Leone has granted the Institute for Legal Research and Advocacy for Justice (ILRAJ) permission to participate as amicus curiae in the ongoing constitutional proceedings concerning the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025.
The decision was made on Wednesday during preliminary proceedings before a five-member panel of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Komba Kamanda.
ILRAJ, through its counsel Basita Michaels Esq., applied to participate in the case on the basis that the organisation could assist the Court with independent legal expertise and arguments on the constitutional questions before it. Counsel stressed that the institute was not seeking to support either the APC, the SLPP or any other party to the proceedings, but intended to assist the Court in its interpretation of the law.
In granting the application, Chief Justice Kamanda noted that an applicant seeking to participate as amicus curiae must demonstrate the value it would bring to the proceedings and how its intervention would assist the Court in reaching a fair and informed determination.
The Court subsequently granted ILRAJ’s application, formally allowing the organisation to participate as a friend of the court as the substantive constitutional questions continue to be argued.
The proceedings arise from several legal challenges surrounding the passage of the Constitutional Amendment Bill, including questions over the voting threshold and procedure Parliament was required to follow when considering amendments to the 1991 Constitution.
The dispute centres particularly on Section 108(2)(b), which provides for the support of at least two-thirds of Members of Parliament for constitutional amendments. Opposition actors, including the All People’s Congress (APC), have challenged the parliamentary process and argued that the required constitutional threshold was not met.
The Attorney-General has also sought the consolidation of the separate cases arising from the same constitutional amendment process, with the State maintaining that the matters raise substantially similar constitutional questions.
Wednesday’s proceedings therefore remain largely procedural, with the Court yet to determine the central constitutional question of whether the disputed amendment was validly passed.
The Supreme Court has scheduled further proceedings as the legal battle over the amendment continues.