APC Drags Speaker To Supreme Court

The All People’s Congress (APC) has taken its dispute over controversial parliamentary proceedings surrounding the Constitution Amendment Bill to the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone, with two separate cases now before the country’s highest court.

The legal actions were explained by Ady Macaulay Esq. during an interview on Liberty TV on Tuesday, 1 September 2026. According to Macaulay, although both matters stem from the same parliamentary controversy, they are separate proceedings with different parties, legal questions and reliefs being sought.

The first case involves the APC, Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, Hon. Abdul Kargbo, and Deputy Opposition Leader, Hon. Daniel Koroma. The defendants include the Speaker of Parliament, Hon. Segepoh Thomas, the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, and the Clerk of Parliament.

Macaulay said the case largely concerns the interpretation and application of constitutional provisions governing parliamentary procedure. Among the provisions at the centre of the case are Sections 108, 91 and 51 of the 1991 Constitution.

The applicants are asking the Supreme Court to provide authoritative constitutional interpretation on the provisions relevant to the parliamentary process and to determine how those provisions should properly be applied in the circumstances that gave rise to the dispute.

The second case was separately filed by Hon. Osman Abdal Timbo in his capacity as a Member of Parliament. Macaulay stressed that Timbo’s action should not be regarded as merely another case filed by the APC, as it is a distinct legal proceeding arising from his direct participation in the parliamentary process.

Hon. Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara, Esq. is representing Timbo in the matter.

According to Macaulay, Timbo’s case focuses more directly on the conduct and decisions of the Speaker during the parliamentary proceedings. The case questions whether the interpretation adopted and the subsequent actions taken by the Speaker were consistent with the requirements of the 1991 Constitution.

The distinction between the two matters, Macaulay explained, is therefore significant. While the APC, Kargbo and Koroma case seeks constitutional guidance on the interpretation of relevant provisions, the Timbo case challenges the constitutionality of specific actions and decisions arising from the parliamentary process.

He compared the two cases to two people travelling to the same destination using different routes. Although their ultimate destination may be similar, the legal routes taken by the applicants are different.

The development places the Supreme Court at the centre of an increasingly significant constitutional dispute concerning the relationship between Parliament, its presiding officers and the constitutional provisions governing legislative proceedings.

For the APC, the court proceedings provide an opportunity to obtain judicial clarification on questions the party believes require authoritative constitutional interpretation. Rather than leaving the disagreement solely within the political arena, the party is seeking a determination from the institution constitutionally mandated to interpret the law.

The two cases could consequently have implications beyond the immediate parliamentary controversy, particularly if the Supreme Court provides guidance on the interpretation of the constitutional provisions governing parliamentary proceedings.

As the matters progress, attention is expected to focus on the arguments presented by the respective parties and, ultimately, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the constitutional provisions at the heart of the dispute.