By Ishmael Sallieu Koroma
FREETOWN, Sierra Leone — Sierra Leone’s police have barred a planned peaceful protest by a civil society organisation over what it describes as an alleged breach of constitutional procedures, escalating a dispute that places the country’s right to peaceful assembly against the authorities’ power to regulate public demonstrations.
The Sierra Leone Police, in a letter dated August 20, 2026, formally disallowed the protest and procession planned by the Citizens Advocacy Network (CAN) for August 26 in parts of Freetown.
The decision came days after CAN notified the police of its intention to mobilise citizens for what it described as a peaceful demonstration centred on constitutionalism, the rule of law and concerns about the process of amending Sierra Leone’s 1991 Constitution.
The police said CAN’s proposed procession could not proceed and warned participants of the legal consequences of taking part in a procession that had been prohibited.
The development has created a potentially significant test of the relationship between Sierra Leone’s constitutional guarantees of peaceful assembly and the powers granted to the police under the country’s Public Order Act.
A protest over the Constitution
CAN’s planned demonstration was not presented simply as a protest against government policy.
The organisation said it wanted citizens to publicly raise concerns over what it considers a breach of constitutional procedures by Parliament in the process surrounding proposed amendments to the 1991 Constitution.
The group planned to petition President Julius Maada Bio, putting its concerns directly before the country’s Head of State.
For CAN, the demonstration is therefore being framed as a civic and constitutional intervention — an attempt to use peaceful assembly to draw national attention to what the organisation believes is a serious question about adherence to the country’s supreme law.
The organisation notified the authorities of its intention to hold the demonstration on August 26, invoking Section 17(1) of the Public Order Act, 1965.
CAN also indicated that it expected significant public participation and called for cooperation from the police to ensure crowd management, traffic control, public safety and continued emergency access.
The organisation said protesters would be expected to conduct themselves peacefully, respect the law and protect public and private property.
The proposed route
The planned procession was to begin at Lumley Beach, one of Freetown’s major public spaces.
From there, protesters were expected to proceed through Stadium Car Park, Savage Street, St John, Sanders Street and Siaka Stevens Street, before ending at State House, where CAN intended to present its petition.
The route would take the demonstration through some of the city’s busiest areas, placing thousands of potential participants alongside motorists, businesses, pedestrians and public institutions.
That presents precisely the type of public-order concern that police authorities routinely consider when regulating demonstrations.
But for CAN, the planned procession was intended to provide citizens with a visible and peaceful means of expressing their concerns about constitutional governance.
Police say the protest is disallowed
In its August 20 letter addressed to Thomas Moore Conteh, Executive Director of CAN, the police acknowledged receipt of the organisation’s August 17 letter notifying authorities of the planned demonstration.
The police also referred to an invitation from the Inspector General of Police for an “ethical interview” scheduled for August 19 to discuss the details of the intended protest and procession.
According to the police, CAN chose not to honour that invitation.
The letter says the Sierra Leone Police took note of CAN’s reliance on Section 17(1) of the Public Order Act.
But the authorities then invoked Section 17(2) of the same legislation.
“Accordingly, the proposed peaceful protest and procession scheduled for 26th August 2026 in parts of Freetown is hereby disallowed,” the police said.
The decision was signed by Chief Superintendent Ismail Keita for the Inspector General of Police.
What Section 17 says
The police relied on Section 17(2) of the Public Order Act, No. 46 of 1965.
That provision empowers the Commissioner of Police, by written order, to disallow a procession or impose conditions where, in the Commissioner’s opinion, the interests of defence, public order, public safety or public morality require it.
The police also reminded CAN of Section 17(3), which makes it an offence for a person to participate in a procession that has been disallowed or to fail to comply with conditions imposed under the law.
That warning gives the August 20 letter a serious legal dimension.
It means that, unless the prohibition is subsequently withdrawn, overturned or otherwise legally addressed, participation in the prohibited procession could expose participants to criminal liability under the legislation.
But CAN’s concerns go beyond one procession
For CAN, the issue is bigger than whether people can march through Freetown on August 26.
The organisation has placed its protest within a broader debate about constitutionalism and democratic accountability.
Its stated concern is that Parliament may have failed to comply with constitutional procedures in dealing with proposed amendments to the 1991 Constitution.
CAN believes citizens should be able to raise those concerns publicly and peacefully.
That position places the planned demonstration within the wider democratic principle that citizens should be able to criticise government institutions and participate in debates concerning the country’s constitutional order.
The proposed petition to President Bio is part of that strategy.
Rather than limiting its concerns to social media or closed-door meetings, CAN planned to bring them into the streets and ultimately to State House.
The constitutional question
Sierra Leone’s Constitution protects freedom of assembly and association.
Section 26 of the 1991 Constitution recognises the right of citizens to assemble freely and associate with others for the protection of their interests, subject to constitutional limitations.
Those limitations include considerations such as public safety and public order.
This creates the central legal tension surrounding the August 26 dispute.
On one side is the constitutional protection of peaceful assembly and citizens’ ability to express political and civic concerns.
On the other is the statutory authority of the police to regulate or prohibit processions where they believe public order, public safety or other legally recognised interests require intervention.
The crucial question is therefore not simply whether police have powers under the Public Order Act.
It is whether those powers have been exercised in a manner consistent with the Constitution and the requirements of a democratic society.
A familiar debate in Sierra Leone
The dispute also revives a longstanding debate in Sierra Leone over the country’s Public Order Act and the regulation of demonstrations.
The law dates back to 1965, while the present constitutional framework was adopted decades later.
Civil society organisations and human rights advocates have repeatedly argued that citizens’ right to protest must be protected, particularly where demonstrations are peaceful.
Police authorities, meanwhile, have the responsibility of preventing violence, protecting property and ensuring that public spaces remain accessible to people who are not participating in demonstrations.
Neither responsibility is insignificant.
A protest can be constitutionally protected while still being subject to reasonable regulation.
The difficult question is where the line should be drawn between regulation and suppression.
CAN had sought a peaceful demonstration
CAN’s notification to the authorities emphasised the peaceful nature of the planned event.
The organisation said participants would be expected to respect the law and the rights of others.
Its request for police cooperation on crowd management, traffic control and public safety suggested that it anticipated the authorities would play a role in facilitating the demonstration rather than simply preventing it.
The group had also copied a number of national and international institutions into its communication, reflecting the seriousness with which it regarded the constitutional issue.
Among the institutions notified were Parliament, the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone and representatives of international organisations and diplomatic missions.
The planned petition to President Bio was intended to bring the organisation’s concerns directly to the executive branch.
Police say they support peaceful expression
Despite banning the August 26 procession, the police letter stops short of rejecting the principle of peaceful expression.
Instead, it says the Sierra Leone Police remain committed to facilitating the peaceful expression of views and concerns in accordance with the law.
The police also said they remained committed to safeguarding public safety, public order and the rights of all persons.
That language leaves open an important question: whether the authorities might be willing to engage CAN over another format, route or set of conditions for expressing its concerns.
For now, however, the proposed procession itself has been expressly disallowed.
What happens next?
The immediate focus is now likely to shift to CAN and whether it accepts the police prohibition.
The organisation could seek further engagement with the authorities, explore alternative arrangements or pursue whatever legal remedies may be available to challenge the decision.
The police, meanwhile, have placed CAN and potential participants on formal notice that the procession cannot proceed in its proposed form.
The situation could become particularly significant if the two sides fail to reach an accommodation before August 26.
At stake is not simply one day’s demonstration.
The dispute raises fundamental questions about how Sierra Leone manages dissent, how far police powers can extend when citizens exercise constitutional rights, and how constitutional disagreements should be resolved in a democracy.
For CAN, the proposed march is a demand for citizens to be heard on the country’s constitutional future.
For the police, the prohibition is an exercise of statutory authority aimed at protecting public order and safety.
Between the two positions lies Sierra Leone’s broader democratic challenge: protecting the right to peaceful dissent while ensuring that the exercise of that right remains lawful, safe and respectful of the rights of others.
As August 26 approaches, the country will be watching to see whether dialogue can prevent the dispute from becoming a confrontation — and whether Sierra Leone’s institutions can demonstrate that constitutional disagreements can be managed through law rather than conflict.
The question now is no longer simply whether CAN will protest. It is whether the country’s constitutional and legal institutions can provide a peaceful avenue for citizens who believe those very institutions have failed to follow the Constitution.
