By Saikujohn Barrie
Since the Parliament of Sierra Leone has called on citizens to make inputs by sending their suggestions and recommendations for inclusion in the constitutional review process, it is useful to reflect on how, in almost all our past elections, political parties have challenged the outcomes — especially the presidential results.
Except for 2023, political parties have consistently gone to court to contest the presidential results announced.
What makes this situation even more problematic is that, as soon as the presidential result is announced — whether challenged in court or not — the president is hurriedly made to take an oath of office.
As everyone knows, cases petitioning presidential results often drag on for years, sometimes lasting almost the entire term of the presidency — if they are even heard at all.
This has always brewed tensions between the ruling party and the opposition, with the latter arguing that the president sworn in is not legitimate, while the ruling party insists legitimacy comes from being the declared winner.
The recent outburst of the Secretary General of the main opposition All People’s Congress (APC) against President Maada Bio is directly tied to the disputed outcome of the 2023 presidential election.
But this problem is not unique to Sierra Leone.
Across Africa, presidential election disputes are common.
Yet some countries have taken bold steps to address this sensitive issue by amending their constitutions to provide clear safeguards.
One notable example is Kenya, whose Constitution sets out a structured process to manage presidential election conflicts.
Kenya’s Constitutional Safeguard on Presidential Election Results
Kenya’s Constitution states that a person declared winner of the presidential election cannot take the oath of office until the Supreme Court has concluded any petition challenging the results. The sequence is clear:
- IEBC Declaration
- The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) declares the presidential election results.
- This declaration is the official announcement of the winner.
- Petition Window
- Under Article 140 of the Constitution, any person may file a petition at the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the election.
- Petitions must be filed within 7 days of the IEBC’s declaration.
- The Supreme Court must hear and determine the petition within 14 days.
- Oath of Office
- If no petition is filed, the President-elect is sworn in on the first Tuesday, 14 days after the declaration of results.
- If a petition is filed, the swearing-in is suspended until the Supreme Court delivers its judgment.
- If the Court upholds the election, the President-elect is sworn in on the first Tuesday, 7 days after the judgment.
- If the Court nullifies the election, a fresh election must be held within 60 days, and no swearing-in occurs until a valid winner is determined.
The oath of office is constitutionally tied to the Supreme Court’s timeline.
Even if the IEBC declares a winner, that person cannot be sworn in until either the 7-day petition window lapses with no challenge, or the Supreme Court rules on any petition filed.
This safeguard ensures that the presidency is not assumed while the election’s validity is still under judicial review.
By embedding this provision, Kenya has significantly reduced one of the likely triggers of election violence.
In view of the Kenyan model, I believe that if our politicians — both APC and SLPP — truly want to address the issues that continue to create discord and unrest in our country, they must consider constitutional amendments that tackle the legitimacy of presidential results.
Whether by adopting Kenya’s model outright, refining it to suit our context, or crafting a similar safeguard, Sierra Leone must find a solution to this recurring problem.
Please let no one tell me about entrench clause in our constitution. Do the right thing to solve this endless problem now..
Only then can we reduce the cycle of tension and accusations that undermine our democracy.
I rest my case.
