By Mohamed Kamara
Recent comments by former Chairman of the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP), Dr. Prince Harding, declaring that “the SLPP will not hand power to the APC,” have triggered widespread constitutional debate among legal and political analysts across Sierra Leone.
Constitutional commentators argue that such statements raise important questions about the limits of party influence within the framework of the national Constitution.
One school of thought maintains that many Sierra Leoneans have long believed in an informal arrangement between the ruling SLPP and the opposition All People’s Congress (APC) to rotate political power between the two parties. Analysts, however, describe this belief as misinformation propagated by party loyalists.
They argue that neither the SLPP nor the APC has constitutional authority to determine rotational governance, stressing that political power can only be attained through democratic elections.
According to these commentators, the Constitution mandates the Political Parties Regulation Commission (PPRC) to treat all 16 registered political parties equally, and only the party that secures the highest number of valid electoral votes can be declared winner by the Electoral Commission.
Another group of analysts contend that many Sierra Leoneans remain victims of political indoctrination, often prioritizing partisan narratives over constitutional principles.
They argue that citizens frequently accept party rhetoric without independently assessing its constitutional validity.
Political observers further note that the most troubling aspect of Sierra Leone’s political culture is the ease with which public opinion can be influenced by partisan loyalty rather than objective truth.
Analysts conclude that Harding’s statement underscores a broader misunderstanding of democratic governance, emphasizing that political power is determined by the electorate and not monopolized by any single political party.
