What it means that ILRAJ has been allowed into the amendment cases The Supreme Court has allowed the Institute for Legal Research and Advocacy for Justice (ILRAJ) to take part in the cases over the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025. ILRAJ will appear as a friend of the court (amicus) to help the Court reach a decision. What the Court did The main case before the judges is S.C. No. 9/2026. It was filed by Hon. Abdul Kargbo, Hon. Daniel Koroma and the All People’s Congress against the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice. They say the Speaker’s ruling of 10 August 2026, which treated the Bill as passed, did not follow the Constitution. Two related cases are also pending. One was filed by Hon. Osman Abdal Timbo. The other was filed by Thomas Moore Conteh and Tamba Kellie. The Attorney-General has asked the Court to hear all three together. The Attorney-General has also filed a Constitutional Reference. ILRAJ was not one of the original parties. It applied for permission to assist the Court on the legal questions. Today the Court, presided over by the Chief Justice, granted that application. ILRAJ may now file a written brief and/or address the judges, within whatever limits the Court sets at a later date Why Court permission was necessary ILRAJ could not simply walk into the case and start making submissions. A friend of the court has to ask, and the Court has to agree. That rule matters because an amicus is not in the same position as the people who brought the case or the people defending it. The plaintiffs and the defendants are parties. They have a direct stake in the result. A friend of the court does not. It is there only if the judges decide its help is useful, and only on the terms the judges allow. The Court keeps control. It decides whether the participation is appropriate, how long the brief may be, and how much time counsel may have. Permission is not automatic, even in a case this large. Here, the reason for allowing it is the size of the question. Section 108 of the 1991 Constitution sets special rules for changing the Constitution. An amendment Bill must be published in the Gazette. At the second and third readings it must have the support of not less than two-thirds of Members of Parliament. Whether those rules were followed on 10 August is not a private quarrel between the parties. It is a question about how the country’s basic law may be altered. That is the setting in which the Court has let ILRAJ assist. What a friend of the court is Amicus curiae is Latin for friend of the court. It is not a plaintiff and not a defendant. It does not ask the Court to declare it the winner. It does not bring new facts or new evidence. Its job is to help the judges understand the law. In this case, that means the rules for changing the 1991 Constitution, especially sections 91 and 108, and how those rules fit with the Speaker’s ruling. ILRAJ says it is not tied to any political party, is not funded by one, and has no private stake in who wins. Its chief executive, Basita Michael, told the Court that the Institute’s only purpose is to place research before the judges. The Court accepted that it may do so. What ILRAJ cannot do It cannot turn the case into its own lawsuit. It cannot call witnesses, file evidence, or ask for an adjournment. It has undertaken not to delay the hearing. It is not seeking costs, and it has asked that none be awarded against it. If the three cases are later joined, the permission granted today is meant to cover the joined hearing as well. What this does not decide Today’s order does not say whether the Bill was validly passed. It does not say whether a constitutional amendment needs two-thirds of all Members of Parliament, or only a majority of those present and voting. That is the real question, and it is still to be argued. What changed today is who may help the Court answer it. The parties will still make their cases. @ILRAJ2 may add a legal brief from outside the dispute, because the Court has said it may. The decision on the Bill itself remains for another day. #SierraLeone @JudiciaryofSL