By: Audrey Raymonda John
The Supreme Court of Sierra Leone has struck out a motion filed by defendants challenging its jurisdiction in ongoing consolidated constitutional proceedings, warning against further delays and ordering the inclusion of a separate constitutional reference filed by the Attorney General and Minister of Justice.
The ruling was delivered on Tuesday, 20 October 2026, by Chief Justice Komba Kamanda, who presided over the matter. The Court declined to entertain the Notice of Motion dated 16 October 2026, citing concerns that the application could impede progress in the substantive proceedings after procedural directions had already been issued.
The Chief Justice emphasized that the Court would not continue to entertain separate interlocutory applications in the pending proceedings, stressing that outstanding issues should be addressed within the established procedural framework to avoid unnecessary delays.
The decision followed the receipt, on 6 October 2026, of a Reference for Judicial Opinion filed by the Attorney General and Minister of Justice under Section 122(1) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone, 1991 (Act No. 6 of 1991).
The reference raises constitutional questions arising from the passage by Parliament of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Act, 2026, which was submitted by the Clerk of Parliament to President Julius Maada Bio for his assent.
According to the Court, the reference was not included among the matters the defendants sought to consolidate in their application dated 11 September 2026. However, the Court observed that the reference concerns the same constitutional amendment legislation at the centre of the existing consolidated proceedings.
In the interest of justice and the efficient determination of the constitutional issues, the Court therefore considered it appropriate to incorporate the reference into the ongoing proceedings so that the related matters could be considered together.
The Court noted that it had issued procedural directions on 8 October 2026, setting timelines for the filing and service of statements of case by the defendants, alongside other requirements governing the conduct of the proceedings.
Against this background, the Court declined to entertain the defendants’ motion, observing that it had the potential to delay progress in the matter despite the directions already issued.
In its formal orders, the Supreme Court struck out the Notice of Motion dated 16 October 2026 and directed that the Attorney General’s Reference for Judicial Opinion, registered as S.C. No. 12 of 2026, be incorporated into the consolidated proceedings.
The Court further ordered that the title of the consolidated matter be amended to include “S.C. No. 12 of 2026 Reference for Judicial Opinion.”
The Attorney General and Minister of Justice was directed to serve the reference on the solicitors representing the plaintiffs and the amicus curiae within 24 hours of the ruling.
Additionally, the Court renewed the timelines contained in its directions of 8 October 2026, with the relevant periods to run from the date of the new order.
The Court warned that any party that failed to comply with the renewed deadlines risked having the proceedings continue in default.
In addressing the procedural issues, Chief Justice Kamanda underscored the need to prevent further delays arising from separate interlocutory applications while the substantive constitutional questions remained pending.
He noted that several related proceedings were already before the Supreme Court, including the Attorney General’s reference under Section 122 of the Constitution.
The ruling signals the Court’s determination to have the related constitutional questions resolved within a single procedural framework rather than through repeated applications that could disrupt the progress of the case.
The matter was heard by Chief Justice Komba Kamanda, sitting with Supreme Court Justice A. M. Bangurah and Supreme Court Justice Fatmatta Bintu Alhadi. Justice Jamesina E. L. King of the Court of Appeal was also listed on the judicial panel.
The decision brings the Attorney General’s constitutional reference into the consolidated proceedings and resets the deadlines for the parties to comply with the Court’s directions as the substantive constitutional case continues.