ILRAJ retweeted
Well done, @ILRAJ2. Looking forward to hearing your amicus submissions.
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
ILRAJ retweeted
Well done @ILRAJ2!
Thank you for your service🇸🇱
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
ILRAJ retweeted
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
Whilst #Ghana's President John Mahama has provided an explanation why his country did not sign the Health Cooperation MOU with the USA, @DembyAustin refuses to respond to our request for the full text of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Health Cooperation between the Governments of #SierraLeone and the #USA, which was signed on 22 December 2025. @mohs_sl The citizens have a right to know.
Let the debate continue. This time, on a national platform in front of a live audience. See you tomorrow Friday 18th September! Or catch it online, radio and TV. #TogetherforTruth
@TruthmediaSL
@EngageSalone
@sierraeyesalone
Let the debate continue. This time, on a national platform in front of a live audience. See you on Friday 18th September! Or catch it online, radio and TV. #TogetherforTruth
@TruthmediaSL
@EngageSalone
@sierraeyesalone
Let the debate continue. This time, on a national platform in front of a live audience. See you on Friday 18th September! Or catch it online, radio and TV. #TogetherforTruth @TruthmediaSL @EngageSalone @sierraeyesalone
🏆 WINNERS ANNOUNCED: UBA NATIONAL ESSAY WRITING COMPETITION 🏆
The United Bank for Africa @UBA_SierraLeone, in collaboration with the Ministry of Basic and Senior Secondary Education @MOBSSE_SL and the Institute for Legal Research and Advocacy for Justice @ILRAJ2, hosted the semi-final and grand final of the #UBA National Essay Writing Competition!
Out of a record-breaking 518 entry essays submitted countrywide, with an overwhelming majority coming from provincial schools and female pupils, 24 semi-finalists were shortlisted to compete at the UBA Headquarters in Freetown.
After rigorous, double-blind marking rounds, our top 3 champions emerged!
🎉 THE CHAMPIONS 🎉
🥇 OVERALL WINNER: Jedeiah Rolyn Williams (The Sierra Leone Grammar School) — Awarded Le 50,000
🥈 1ST RUNNER-UP: Sia Mary Destiny Saquee (Cluny Free the Children Secondary School) — Awarded Le 30,000
🥉 2ND RUNNER-UP: Alhaji Saidu Mohamed (The International School Limited) — Awarded Le 20,000
EVERY FINALIST IS A WINNER!
All 12 finalists were presented with an HP Laptop, a brand-new school bag packed with supplies, and an official Certificate of Participation. Semi-finalists also received certificates, school kits, and travel refunds for their journey.
A huge congratulations to all our brilliant young minds, their dedicated teachers, proud parents, and school communities across #SierraLeone!
#UBASierraLeone @UBAGroup #EducationFirst #YouthEmpowerment #SierraLeone #ILRAJ #MBSSE
The winner, Jedeiah Rolyn Williams of the Sierra Leone Grammar School. @UBASierraLeone @UBAGroup #EducationFirst #YouthEmpowerment #SierraLeone #ILRAJ @MOBSSE_SL
Recently, @ILRAJ2 submitted requests under the Right to Access Information Act, 2013, to both the Ministry of Information and the Ministry of Health.
The @MoiceComm provided a detailed response and releasing the requested documents on our request for the government printing contracts. Kudos to @Cee_Bah and his team for doing their job.
Our request to the @mohs_sl has been met with total silence.
On 11th June 2026, we formally requested the full text of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Health Cooperation between the Governments of #SierraLeone and the #USA, which was signed on 22 December 2025.
This is not a minor administrative document. The 5-year bilateral agreement (2026–2030) restructures the financing of our health sector, commits tens of millions of dollars of Sierra Leonean public funds, and requires steadily increasing co-investment from our government.
Despite the Act legally mandating a response within ten (10) working days, over two months have passed without a reply.
The public is still waiting on critical details, including:
1. The complete signed MOU, along with all annexes and protocols.
2. The specific schedule of Sierra Leone’s financial co-investment obligations from 2026 to 2030.
3. Details regarding the fiscal management and domestic resource mobilisation reforms required as a condition of U.S. assistance.
4. Details regarding the fiscal management and domestic resource mobilization reforms required as a condition of U.S. assistance.
Sierra Leoneans have a legitimate, legal right to know the precise terms under which their government is assuming substantial financial obligations over the next five years.
Transparency is not optional. It is the law. We call on the Ministry of Health and @DembyAustin to honour its obligations under the Right to Access Information Act and release these documents immediately.
"The Supreme Court will now decide. It should be said clearly that if it upholds the ruling, the practical consequence is that the Constitution of Sierra Leone is, save for the listed provisions, no more difficult to amend than the Finance Act. Whatever else the framers of 1991 intended after the experience of 1978, it was not that."
ilraj.org/a-ruling-against-t… #SierraLeone @JudiciaryofSL
@ILRAJ2 Press Statement on the Passage of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025. #SierraLeone
WHEN LAWYERS ARE LOCKED OUT OF THEIR OWN MEETING
ILRAJ statement on the Sierra Leone Bar Association elections
On Friday 31 July 2026, members of the Sierra Leone Bar Association arrived at the Freetown International Conference Centre in Aberdeen for their Annual General Meeting and executive elections. They had paid their subscriptions and conference fees. Many had travelled from Bo, Kenema, Makeni and beyond. They were met by police officers and refused entry. Members report being told the instruction came from above. No court order restraining the meeting has been produced. The meeting stands postponed indefinitely, and the Association's Public Relations Officer has resigned in protest.
The Institute for Legal Research and Advocacy for Justice has issued a public statement. Our position rests on a single proposition. The rule of law is not selective. It binds the State in its dealings with the Bar, and it binds the Bar in its dealings with its own members.
Read the full statement here - ilraj.org/wp-content/uploads…
The Institute for Legal Research and Advocacy for Justice (ILRAJ) stands in solidarity with the global community and the KNOWHEP Foundation, in commemorating this important day under the theme, “Hepatitis: Let’s Break It Down.”
This theme is a call to dismantle the barriers that continue to prevent millions of people from accessing timely prevention, testing, treatment, and care. Although the tools to eliminate viral hepatitis already exist including effective vaccines, accurate diagnostics, and life saving treatments far too many people remain left behind due to stigma, misinformation, weak health systems, and unequal access to healthcare.
As an organisation committed to advancing justice, human rights, and equitable access to essential services, ILRAJ believes that the fight against hepatitis is also a fight for dignity, equality, and the right to health. We therefore call on governments, development partners, civil society, and communities to strengthen awareness, invest in accessible healthcare, and ensure that no one is denied the opportunity to live a healthy life.
Together with the KNOWHEP Foundation, ILRAJ remains committed to supporting efforts that promote public awareness, reduce stigma, and advocate for policies that make hepatitis prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and care available to all.
Breaking down barriers today is how we eliminate hepatitis tomorrow.
#WorldHepatitisDay2026 #LetsBreakItDown #ILRAJ #KNOWHEPFoundation
ILRAJ retweeted
ILRAJ (@ILRAJ2) is proud to announce the publication of our latest report: a comprehensive legal assessment of Sierra Leone’s sexual and gender-based legal framework. Conducted alongside @UNDPSierraLeone and @mogca_S_L through the #SpotlightInitiative, this research translates community perspectives into meaningful, lasting legal reform.
While Sierra Leone possesses one of the more advanced gender law frameworks in West Africa, our assessment finds that its protective force is continually diminished by critical structural flaws:
🔻 Constitutional Level: The clawback clause in Section 27(4)(d) exempts personal and customary law from non-discrimination guarantees, entrenching inequality in marriage, divorce, and inheritance.
🔻 Statutory Level:Discretionary wording that weakens quotas, conflicting legislation over minimum age of marriage, lenient penalties, and silences on tech-facilitated abuse, coercive control, and attempted rape. Crucially, Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) remains uncriminalized, despite the July 2025 ECOWAS Court of Justice ruling.
🔻 Implementation Level: Lack of shelters, prohibitive barriers to reporting, and severe under-resourcing leave a wide gulf between statutory promise and daily reality.
Real progress requires fixing the law as well as enforcing it. The report concludes with a 10-part roadmap for reform, spanning constitutional updates, an FGM law, statutory harmonization, and sustained institutional investment.
🔗 Read and download the full report here: ilraj.org/wp-content/uploads…
#UNSierraLeone @EUinSierraLeone #UNDP #UNICEF #UNFPA #UNWomen #EndGBV @UNSierraLeone #GenderJustice #LegalReform #SierraLeone #HumanRights #SpotlightInitiative #ILRAJ
ILRAJ (@ILRAJ2) is proud to announce the publication of our latest report: a comprehensive legal assessment of Sierra Leone’s sexual and gender-based legal framework. Conducted alongside @UNDPSierraLeone and @mogca_S_L through the #SpotlightInitiative, this research translates community perspectives into meaningful, lasting legal reform.
While Sierra Leone possesses one of the more advanced gender law frameworks in West Africa, our assessment finds that its protective force is continually diminished by critical structural flaws:
🔻 Constitutional Level: The clawback clause in Section 27(4)(d) exempts personal and customary law from non-discrimination guarantees, entrenching inequality in marriage, divorce, and inheritance.
🔻 Statutory Level:Discretionary wording that weakens quotas, conflicting legislation over minimum age of marriage, lenient penalties, and silences on tech-facilitated abuse, coercive control, and attempted rape. Crucially, Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) remains uncriminalized, despite the July 2025 ECOWAS Court of Justice ruling.
🔻 Implementation Level: Lack of shelters, prohibitive barriers to reporting, and severe under-resourcing leave a wide gulf between statutory promise and daily reality.
Real progress requires fixing the law as well as enforcing it. The report concludes with a 10-part roadmap for reform, spanning constitutional updates, an FGM law, statutory harmonization, and sustained institutional investment.
🔗 Read and download the full report here: ilraj.org/wp-content/uploads…
#UNSierraLeone @EUinSierraLeone #UNDP #UNICEF #UNFPA #UNWomen #EndGBV @UNSierraLeone #GenderJustice #LegalReform #SierraLeone #HumanRights #SpotlightInitiative #ILRAJ