Amid Ebola Emergency, Political Problems Distract Sierra Leone

In the midst of Sierra Leone’s continuing struggle against Ebola, the epidemic seems to have taken a back seat of late to political wrangling around the sacking of the country’s vice president—in circumstances that demonstrate an alarming disregard for the rule of law.

The first sign that something was awry came on March 6, when the vice president of the country, Sam-Sumana was expelled from the All People’s Congress (APC), the political party currently in power. The list of reasons offered by the APC included allegations that Sam-Sumana had engaged in anti-party acvities, including inciting hate, fomenting violence, and lying about his faith and his academic credentials.

In the context of the reported long standing tension between President Ernest Bai Koroma and Sam-Sumana some have surmised that the real reason Sam-Sumana was expelled was to remove the possibility of him running for president in the next election. His expulsion from the party was closely followed by his sacking from the position of vice president. While the events that led up to the dismissal remain murky, it has widely been reported that it followed a bid by Sam-Sumana on March 14 to seek political asylum at the United States embassy in Freetown, claiming his life was in danger.

On the surface, this could appear to merely be a case of political maneuvering ahead of the 2017/8 general elections—especially if the executive’s pronouncements that the sacking was in line with the constitution are to be taken at face value. On further examination, however, the decision taken by President Koroma to remove the vice president from his post breaches the letter of the Sierra Leone constitution.

In a statement released by State House, President Koroma argues that the removal of the VP was in line with the 1991 constitution, citing section 40(1) and 41(b).

  • Section 40(1) states that the President of Sierra Leone is the supreme executive authority of the Republic;
  • and section 41(b) requires an individual running for president be a member of a political party.

However, the president and his advisors fail to consider the sections of the constitution relevant to the issue of removing a vice president from office.

While it is true that the president is the supreme executive authority, he does not reign supreme over the constitution—he too is subject to the law. And while it is true that in order to run for election, one has to be a member of a political party, reference to this requirement does not align with the facts; nowhere is it contended that Sam-Sumana was looking to run for office—he was already the vice president.  Nor does it state that the vice president must be a member of a political party to remain in office once elected, although the government argues that this is a continuous requirement.

Sections 50 and 51 are the relevant constitutional provisions relating to the process for removing vice president from office (as referenced in section 54(8)). Section 50 sets out the process for removal if the reason relates to the mental or physical incapacity of the office holder; section 51 sets out the process for removal if the reason relates to misconduct by the office holder. Sam-Sumana is accused of gross misconduct for seeking asylum at the US Embassy as it allegedly signaled an intention to abandon his duties as vice president. But in order to remove the vice president on the basis of gross misconduct, the constitution requires:

  • notice of the alleged misconduct in the form of a motion to be given by no less than half of all the members of parliament, proposing an investigation into the matter; 
  • if two thirds of parliament agree to the abovementioned motion, a tribunal will be set up to investigate the matter; and
  • if the tribunal finds the allegations to be substantiated, parliament may remove the vice president from office if two thirds of all the members parliament agree to the motion.

The president has failed to follow this process, opting to fire the vice president without authorization from parliament. A replacement was installed shortly after, while Sam-Sumana has petitioned the supreme court to resolve the matter.

The confrontation has sounded alarm bells for many, and stirred divisions. Last week, lawyers at the Sierra Leone bar association denounced the president’s action as unconstitutional. But the executive leadership declined to endorse the statement on the question, saying it was under the jurisdiction of the supreme court.  

In an effort to promote a resolution to the crisis, fourteen civil society organizations have also urged President Koroma and Sam-Sumana to work within the framework of the law to resolve the crisis. In a statement on March 15 they said they were “gravely concerned by the rising political tension which poses a threat to the peace and security of Sierra Leone's emerging democracy.”

The consortium also implored all parties in the ongoing impasse to demonstrate political tolerance, to use due process of the law to address their concerns if necessary, and to respect the constitution.

These statements should not be mistaken as representing collective national concern for Sam-Sumana—indeed many have previously questioned his competence to hold the office of  vice-president. Instead, behind these statements of concern lies Sierra Leone’s relatively recent turbulent history: rule by men instead of adherence to the rule of law is something many in Sierra Leone have cause to fear. 

Get In Touch

Contact Us

Subscribe for Updates About Our Work

By entering your email address and clicking “Submit,” you agree to receive updates from the Open Society Justice Initiative about our work. To learn more about how we use and protect your personal data, please view our privacy policy.