Sierra Leone constitution amendment – be careful what you wish for – Op ed

Basita Michael: Sierra Leone Telegraph: 9 August 2026:

Looking at the drama surrounding the proposed constitutional amendments, one would think we were living in the days of George Washington, surrounded by political leaders so restrained by constitutional principle that the Constitution itself was in no danger from those entrusted with power.

On one side, the Opposition is calling for prayer and fasting. On the other, President Julius Maada Bio reminds us that “the Constitution is not the property of one government, one institution, or one group.”

The President also asks: “Why now? Why focus on electoral reforms?”

His answer is that elections are approaching and that if we delay, we risk conducting another election under rules which Government, Opposition, civil society, citizens and election observers have all recognised as requiring reform.

That reasoning, standing alone, is perfectly understandable.

But it raises the question: Where was this urgency about constitutionalism when the constitutional concerns were not about elections?

This administration has hardly been without serious constitutional controversy—from the establishment of the Commissions of Inquiry; to the removal or suspension of holders of offices protected by constitutional or statutory tenure; to the controversy surrounding the appointment of the former Chief Justice and the constitutional role of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission; to the suspension and eventual removal process involving the Auditor-General.

When citizens protested alleged constitutional violations, when civil society raised objections, when the Opposition complained, and when constitutional safeguards appeared inconvenient to those exercising executive power, we did not always see the same urgency to remind the country that the Constitution belonged to all of us.

During the early years of this administration, when I was particularly encouraged by President Bio’s own rhetoric on constitutional reform and enthusiastic about the prospect of meaningful reform, a very learned colleague cautioned me:

“Be careful what you wish for.”

At the time, I asked him what he meant. His answer has stayed with me ever since: The real question is not whether a constitution can be amended. Of course it can.

The real question is who is amending it, what powers are being altered, and what their record tells us about how they treat constitutional restraints when those restraints become inconvenient.

He is no longer with us, but for posterity I would be doing Sierra Leone a disservice if I did not repeat his caution today.

May his soul rest in peace.

And that caution goes far beyond the present government. Governments come and go. Presidents come and go. But constitutional amendments and the precedents they create can outlive them all.

So yes, let us amend the Constitution where amendment is genuinely necessary. But citizens should judge constitutional reform not merely by the promises of those proposing it, but also by their record when the Constitution previously stood in their way.

Because if constitutional principles suddenly become sacred when elections are approaching, then perhaps our problem was never simply the Constitution.

Our problem has always been whether those entrusted with power believe the Constitution applies to them too.