ATTORNEY GENERAL SEEKS DISMISSAL OF CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT CHALLENGES

The defendants in three consolidated Supreme Court cases challenging matters relating to the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2026, are seeking to have the actions struck out or dismissed, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear them.
A notice of motion supplied by the Law Officers Department and Defense Lawyers sets out the defendants’ objections and asks the court to halt further proceedings while their application is heard and determined.
The document is an application for court orders—not a ruling. It does not establish that the Supreme Court has accepted the arguments or dismissed the cases.
The application seeks the dismissal of the consolidated proceedings involving: Hon. Osman Abdal Timbo against the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice and another — S.C. Case No. 8/2026, Hon. Abdul Kargbo, Hon. Daniel Koroma and the All Peoples Congress against the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice — S.C. Case No. 9/2026, Thomas Moore Conteh and another against the Speaker of Parliament and another — S.C. Case No. 11/2026
The defendants/applicants contend that the Supreme Court cannot undertake a standard judicial review or determine the constitutional validity of the amendment bill before it receives presidential assent and becomes law.
As an alternative ground for dismissal, the notice states that the bill has been submitted to the President for assent and that the President has sought the Supreme Court’s opinion under the proviso to section 122(1) of the 1991 Constitution.
The applicants also invoke section 48(4), arguing that presidential immunity prevents the court from issuing any process or order compelling or forbidding the President to perform his official duties.
These are arguments advanced in the application; the supplied notice contains no court determination on them. The applicants further seek declarations concerning sections 127 and 94(2) of the Constitution.
They argue that section 127 does not give the Supreme Court jurisdiction to entertain an originating notice of motion whose substance and effect would require an inquiry into parliamentary proceedings.
They also ask the court to declare that section 94(2), properly interpreted, prevents it from reviewing or otherwise adjudicating upon proceedings in Parliament.
In addition to dismissal, the applicants seek a stay of further proceedings pending determination of their application, an order on costs and any other relief the court considers appropriate. The notice states that the applicants intend to rely on an affidavit by Joseph Sesay, sworn on 16 October 2026 and described in the document as filed.