Ady Macauley Disputes Parliament’s Interpretation of Constitutional Amendment Threshold

Former Anti-Corruption Commissioner and All People’s Congress (APC) flagbearer aspirant Ady Macauley Esq. has raised fresh constitutional questions over the passage of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025.

Macauley, in a rejoinder to an article by Dr. Michael Imran Kanu, has rejected arguments defending Parliament’s approval of the Bill on 10 August 2026, arguing that the process did not meet the constitutional requirements for amending Sierra Leone’s supreme law.

Dr. Kanu had defended Parliament’s interpretation of the constitutional threshold under Section 108(2)(b) of the 1991 Constitution, while maintaining that the Supreme Court should ultimately determine the competing interpretations.

Macauley, however, contends that the two interpretations are not equally persuasive and argues that Parliament’s approach cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.

At the centre of the dispute is the meaning of the phrase “Members of Parliament” under Section 108(2)(b), which sets out the requirements for the passage of constitutional amendment Bills.

Macauley argues that the Constitution itself provides the meaning of “Members of Parliament” and that the term should not be interpreted as referring only to lawmakers who were physically present and voted during the parliamentary proceedings.

His latest intervention adds to the ongoing legal and constitutional debate over the amendment Bill, particularly the parliamentary majority required under the Constitution to effect changes to Sierra Leone’s supreme law.