Freetown, 18th August, 2026 – Prominent law firm Nicol-Wilson & Co has formally petitioned the Speaker of Parliament, raising grave concerns over what it describes as an “unconstitutional constitutional amendment” passed during the controversial parliamentary sitting of August 10.
At the center of the dispute is the 1991 Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2025, which seeks to lower the presidential electoral threshold from 55 percent of valid votes cast to 50 percent plus one. The firm argues that the procedure adopted by Parliament violated mandatory constitutional safeguards.
In its letter, Nicol-Wilson & Co contends that the Speaker wrongly applied Section 91(1) of the Constitution, which governs ordinary parliamentary decisions, instead of the stricter Section 108(2)(b), which requires the support of not less than two-thirds of all Members of Parliament for constitutional amendments.
Quoting directly from the Constitution, the firm emphasized: “It requires ‘not less than two-thirds of the Members of Parliament.’ It does not say ‘two-thirds of the Members present and voting.’”
The lawyers argue that the distinction is deliberate, designed to prevent governments from altering the supreme law with only a simple majority of those present.
The Speaker’s reliance on Section 94(2), which shields parliamentary procedural decisions from judicial inquiry, was also dismissed by the firm. Nicol-Wilson & Co stressed that this provision cannot be stretched to cover constitutional interpretation, citing past rulings such as APC & Others v Speaker & Others (2000).
“Parliamentary autonomy does not amount to parliamentary sovereignty,” the letter stated, insisting that both Parliament and the Speaker remain subject to the Constitution.
The firm urged that the matter be referred to the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone, but cautioned that judicial interpretation cannot retroactively validate a flawed process. “The constitutional requirement was either satisfied when the vote was taken or it was not,” the letter argued.
Ultimately, Nicol-Wilson & Co concluded that the amendment is “null, void and of no legal effect,” urging the Supreme Court to declare it unconstitutional once seized of the matter.
The dispute has already sparked political tension, with the opposition All People’s Congress (APC) walking out of the August 10 sitting. As Nicol-Wilson & Co put it in its closing words: “Fiat Justitia Ruat Caelum” – let justice be done though the heavens fall.
