Kanu Alie

You can pay attention to bad actors who pretend to be Manchester United fans & put a negative spin on everything for their own benefit, because it sells. Or you can see them for what they are, what their true interest in the club is. Oh, and this is fun to 'keep an eye on' too:

AdamJoseph's tweet photo. You can pay attention to bad actors who pretend to be Manchester United fans & put a negative spin on everything for their own benefit, because it sells. Or you can see them for what they are, what their true interest in the club is.

Oh, and this is fun to 'keep an eye on' too: https://t.co/99L8eHXnyY

220

138K

Kanu Alie

@KanuMartyn

18 days ago

@OwenUnitedView Thank you @OwenUnitedView

160

Kanu Alie

@KanuMartyn

18 days ago

Just shut your mouth @markgoldbridge . Forget the names.. Not every plan A,B or C works all the time. With Baleba, we will have a balance midfield. You talk too much and most time it nonsense

Mark Goldbridge

@markgoldbridge

18 days ago

How much do the Glazers pay you mate 😆 Because you know for a fact those 3 were not the plan. You can't praise a perfect summer when you know our plan A, B and C wasn't the below. I'm hopeful it works but you're preaching like these were the names we wanted in May

413

198

124

783K

Kanu Alie

@KanuMartyn

19 days ago

They end up sacking the auditor general and her Deputy. Salone na countri

Kanu Alie

@KanuMartyn

almost 5 years ago

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorises it and a moral code that glorifies it” This is exactly what is happening now in Sierra Leone

KanuMartyn's tweet photo. When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorises it and a moral code that glorifies it” This is exactly what is happening now in Sierra Leone https://t.co/nZsUaos9h7

Kanu Alie

@KanuMartyn

20 days ago

@henrywinter When it a Manchester United player you won't here stuff like this. I am happy my club don't sign him.

102

12K

Kanu Alie

@KanuMartyn

23 days ago

*WITH TEARS WE REMEMBER EVANGELIST SAMSON* Today, we honor the memory of the APC Field-Marshal General-Evangelist Samson, who was unlawfully killed by gunmen under the government of Julius Maada Bio. His voice for truth, his courage, and his sacrifice will never be forgotten by the APC family and Sierra Leoneans. We continue to call for justice. @USEmbassySL @UKinSierraLeone @commonwealthsec @IntlCrimCourt #JusticeForEvangelistSamson #NeverForget *©️EVANGELIST SAMSON'S LIVING LEGACY

KanuMartyn's tweet photo. *WITH TEARS WE REMEMBER EVANGELIST SAMSON*

Today, we honor the memory of the APC Field-Marshal General-Evangelist Samson, who was unlawfully killed by gunmen under the government of Julius Maada Bio.

His voice for truth, his courage, and his sacrifice will never be forgotten by the APC family and Sierra Leoneans.

We continue to call for justice.

@USEmbassySL
@UKinSierraLeone
@commonwealthsec
@IntlCrimCourt

#JusticeForEvangelistSamson #NeverForget

*©️EVANGELIST SAMSON'S LIVING LEGACY

Kanu Alie

@KanuMartyn

26 days ago

Once again, the country finds itself at the mercy of the Supreme Court to interpret a constitutional provision that should never have become this politically contentious in the first place. APC Members of Parliament walked out of Parliament, as Parliament proceeded with the Constitutional Amendment Bill 2025. At the heart of the dispute is a deceptively simple but deeply pivotal question: Does “two-thirds of the members of Parliament” mean two-thirds of ALL elected Members of Parliament, or two-thirds of those present and voting? The wording of Section 108(2)(b) is significant. It says a constitutional amendment Bill shall not be passed unless it is supported, at the second and third readings, by “not less than two-thirds OF the members of Parliament.” That language deserves strict constitutional interpretation, not political convenience. The question is therefore bigger than the APC and bigger than the SLPP. It is about whether constitutional safeguards can be diluted by procedural interpretation. If the Constitution intended two-thirds of those present and voting, why did it not say so? Sierra Leoneans have seen before how Supreme Court interpretations can fundamentally alter the political meaning of constitutional provisions. The 2015 decision upholding President Ernest Bai Koroma’s removal of Vice President Samuel Sam-Sumana remains a powerful reminder that constitutional interpretation can produce consequences far beyond the courtroom. And now, once again, the nation waits. The Supreme Court must not be perceived as choosing between political camps. It must choose the Constitution. If Parliament can amend constitutional provisions affecting elections, representation and the architecture of political power without the constitutionally intended supermajority, then the real danger is not merely what is being amended today, it is the precedent being established for tomorrow. This is why the Supreme Court’s forthcoming interpretation matters so deeply. The country does not need an interpretation that resonates with a political party. It needs an interpretation that resonates with the Constitution, the rule of law and, ultimately, the people of Sierra Leone. Because constitutions are not amended to suit the strength of the government of the day. They are protected precisely because governments and oppositions come and go. @wise_bangura

Kanu Alie

@KanuMartyn

27 days ago

Based on the wording of Section 108(2)(b) shown in your image, the two-thirds requirement is not referring to two-thirds of the Members of Parliament who are merely present in the chamber. The Constitution says: “the Bill is supported on the second and third readings by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the Members of Parliament.” What does that mean? The important phrase is “two-thirds of the Members of Parliament”, not: “two-thirds of Members present”; or “two-thirds of Members present and voting.” So, legally, the wording points to two-thirds of the full membership of Parliament, rather than two-thirds of whoever happens to be present during the vote. For example, if Parliament has 146 Members, two-thirds would be: 146 × ⅔ = 99.3 → at least 99 Members. Therefore, if only 100 MPs were present, it would not mean that 67 of those 100 automatically satisfy the constitutional requirement. The constitutional language requires the necessary two-thirds of the Members of Parliament as a whole. There is another important point in your photograph Section 108(3) creates an even higher constitutional safeguard for certain provisions. It says that where the Bill concerns the listed entrenched provisions, it cannot become law unless, after being passed by Parliament, it is submitted to and approved at a referendum. So there are essentially two different requirements: 1. Section 108(2): at least two-thirds of Members of Parliament must support the Bill at the second and third readings. 2. Section 108(3): for the specially protected provisions listed there, Parliamentary approval alone is not enough a referendum is also required. Bottom line is : The wording in Section 108(2)(b) does not say “two-thirds of members present.” It says “not less than two-thirds of the Members of Parliament.” That distinction is legally significant. If someone is arguing that “two-thirds” simply means two-thirds of the MPs sitting in Parliament on that particular day, Section 108(2)(b) itself does not support that interpretation. The framers could have written “two-thirds of the Members present and voting” if that was the intended threshold. They did not. Culled

KanuMartyn's tweet photo. Based on the wording of Section 108(2)(b) shown in your image, the two-thirds requirement is not referring to two-thirds of the Members of Parliament who are merely present in the chamber.

The Constitution says:

“the Bill is supported on the second and third readings by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the Members of Parliament.”

What does that mean?

The important phrase is “two-thirds of the Members of Parliament”, not:

“two-thirds of Members present”; or

“two-thirds of Members present and voting.”

So, legally, the wording points to two-thirds of the full membership of Parliament, rather than two-thirds of whoever happens to be present during the vote.

For example, if Parliament has 146 Members, two-thirds would be:

146 × ⅔ = 99.3 → at least 99 Members.

Therefore, if only 100 MPs were present, it would not mean that 67 of those 100 automatically satisfy the constitutional requirement. The constitutional language requires the necessary two-thirds of the Members of Parliament as a whole.

There is another important point in your photograph

Section 108(3) creates an even higher constitutional safeguard for certain provisions. It says that where the Bill concerns the listed entrenched provisions, it cannot become law unless, after being passed by Parliament, it is submitted to and approved at a referendum.

So there are essentially two different requirements:

1. Section 108(2): at least two-thirds of Members of Parliament must support the Bill at the second and third readings.

2. Section 108(3): for the specially protected provisions listed there, Parliamentary approval alone is not enough a referendum is also required.

Bottom line is : The wording in Section 108(2)(b) does not say “two-thirds of members present.” It says “not less than two-thirds of the Members of Parliament.” That distinction is legally significant.

If someone is arguing that “two-thirds” simply means two-thirds of the MPs sitting in Parliament on that particular day, Section 108(2)(b) itself does not support that interpretation. The framers could have written “two-thirds of the Members present and voting” if that was the intended threshold. They did not.

Culled

Kanu Alie

@KanuMartyn

27 days ago

Parliament Passes Constitution Amendment Bill 2025 The Parliament of Sierra Leone has today passed into law the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Act, 2025 by a simple majority pursuant to section 91(1) of the 1991 Constitution. The bill changes the threshold for winning presidential elections from 55% to 50%+1 and makes the Proportional Representation the country’s only electoral system for electing Parliamentarians. The Speaker of Parliament Hon. Segehpoh Solomon Thomas says he will refer to the Supreme Court for an opinion on whether the only way a constitution can be altered is through Section 91(1). The bill was passed in the absence of all but two opposition members who staged a walkout earlier over the voting methodology. #TruthTellers Another rigging tactics at work

Kanu Alie

@KanuMartyn

27 days ago

Statement of Former presidential aspirant of THE ALL PEOPLE'S CONGRESS PARTY. LONG MAY YOU LIVE SIR

SamuraKamara2023

@samurakamara201

27 days ago

STATEMENT BY DR. SAMURA MATHEW WILSON KAMARA ON THE CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2025 10 August 2026 I have read the statement issued by the All Peoples Congress on the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025. I support it. I support the constitutional guarantee of a minimum of thirty percent representation for women in political nominations. I support the broadening of political participation for Sierra Leoneans holding dual citizenship. I support the retention of the First-Past-the-Post constituency-based electoral system, because the bond between a citizen and the Member of Parliament who answers to that citizen by name is one of the few direct relationships our democracy has, and it should be restored rather than abolished. And I support the retention of the fifty-five percent threshold for the election of a President, because a country as diverse as ours should require anyone who seeks its highest office to go out and earn the trust of Sierra Leoneans who did not begin as his or her supporters. These positions are correct. I commend them. But I want to speak beyond the Bill, because the most important sentence in that statement is not about the Bill at all. The Constitution belongs to the people That sentence is true. It is the truest thing that has been said in our national conversation this week. The Constitution does not belong to the party that governs. It does not belong to the party that opposes. It does not belong to a President, a Cabinet, a Parliament, or a party executive. It belongs to the market woman in Bo who was never asked, the okada rider in Makeni whose voice must count, the farmer in Kenema who will be governed by it, and the student in Freetown who will live under it long after every one of us has left the stage. And because that is true, something else must also be true. The principle cannot stop at the Constitution. What a party owes its people A political party is not the property of those who happen to lead it at a given moment. It is a trust. It is held on behalf of the men and women who carry its card, wear its colors, fill its rallies, walk long distances in the sun, sit through the night at polling centers, and ask for nothing in return except that their voices be heard by the people they put in office. Leadership of a party is a tenancy. It is not an inheritance, and it is not a possession. Those who lead do not own the mandate. They administer it, and they answer for it. A party that cannot hear its own members will not be believed when it claims to hear the nation. The statement rightly observes that consultation must have consequences. That is a fine principle and a true one. But it cannot be true only in Parliament. It must be true in every room where decisions are taken in the name of other people, including our own rooms. We cannot ask citizens to speak and then decide in advance what we are prepared to hear. If it is wrong for Parliament to disregard the expressed wishes of citizens on a constitutional question, then it is wrong to disregard the expressed wishes of citizens on any question on which they have already spoken. The ballot is the highest form of consultation known to a democracy. Its consequences cannot be optional. That principle must govern the question that has occupied our party and our supporters since 24 June 2023. For three years, men and women across this country and in the diaspora have stood in the demand for electoral justice. They defended their votes, they bore real cost, and they placed their trust in commitments made to them that their democratic voice would not be quietly set aside. National commitments arrived at through dialogue after those elections remain unimplemented to this day. No leadership, in any party, has the moral authority to bring that struggle to an end, alter its course, or redefine its purpose without first hearing from the people in whose name it was undertaken. And every day those commitments remain unimplemented, this country is being taught a dangerous lesson: that a people can be consulted and then set aside. That lesson will not stay confined to the matter that taught it. It will corrode every consultation that follows, including this one. To our Members of Parliament To every Member of Parliament, on both sides of the aisle, I say this without partisanship. Let us be honest about how you came to that Chamber. Not one of you was elected by a constituency. You were elected from a district list, and your position on that list was determined inside a political party. That is not an accusation against any Member. It is a plain description of the system under which all of us contested in 2023, and it is the very system this Bill now proposes to write permanently into the supreme law of the Republic. Consider carefully what that means. Under a list, a Member’s accountability runs upward, toward those who compile the list, rather than outward, toward the citizens who must live with the result. A citizen who is failed has no one he can name and no one he can remove. A Member who serves the people faithfully but displeases those who rank the list has no protection at all. This is not a technical matter of electoral administration. It is the difference between a Parliament that answers to the nation and a Parliament that answers to itself. I know this argument is uncomfortable, because it is uncomfortable for all of us. I make it anyway, and I make it first about my own party. A system in which representatives answer to lists rather than to people is precisely how any leadership, in any party, comes to believe that it need not consult the people at all. The arithmetic is public. Section 108(2) of the Constitution requires the affirmative votes of not less than two-thirds of all one hundred and forty-nine Members. That is one hundred votes. Fifty Members are enough to withhold passage, and our party alone holds more than fifty seats. On this Bill there will be no crowd to hide in and no majority to blame. History will not record the whip. It will record the vote. To my party, and to the nation I say this with love for the All Peoples Congress and with no rancor toward anyone. A principle that is invoked only when it is convenient is not a principle. It is a tactic. And the people of Sierra Leone can tell the difference. They have long memories and very short patience for words that are not matched by conduct. They will listen to what we say today. They will judge us by what we do tomorrow. So let us mean it. Let us mean it in Parliament, and let us mean it in our own house. Let the standard we demand of the Government be the standard we accept for ourselves. Let consultation have consequences everywhere, or let us stop using the word. The party’s statement closed with words I gladly adopt as my own: Country first. Democracy always. The people must have the final say. Those are the right words. Let them now become our conduct. Dr. Samura Mathew Wilson Kamara APC Presidential Candidate, 2023 My Sierra Leone, My Responsibility

samurakamara201's tweet photo. STATEMENT BY DR. SAMURA MATHEW WILSON KAMARA
ON THE CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2025

10 August 2026

I have read the statement issued by the All Peoples Congress on the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Bill, 2025.

I support it.

I support the constitutional guarantee of a minimum of thirty percent representation for women in political nominations. I support the broadening of political participation for Sierra Leoneans holding dual citizenship. I support the retention of the First-Past-the-Post constituency-based electoral system, because the bond between a citizen and the Member of Parliament who answers to that citizen by name is one of the few direct relationships our democracy has, and it should be restored rather than abolished. And I support the retention of the fifty-five percent threshold for the election of a President, because a country as diverse as ours should require anyone who seeks its highest office to go out and earn the trust of Sierra Leoneans who did not begin as his or her supporters.

These positions are correct. I commend them.

But I want to speak beyond the Bill, because the most important sentence in that statement is not about the Bill at all.

The Constitution belongs to the people

That sentence is true. It is the truest thing that has been said in our national conversation this week.

The Constitution does not belong to the party that governs. It does not belong to the party that opposes. It does not belong to a President, a Cabinet, a Parliament, or a party executive. It belongs to the market woman in Bo who was never asked, the okada rider in Makeni whose voice must count, the farmer in Kenema who will be governed by it, and the student in Freetown who will live under it long after every one of us has left the stage.

And because that is true, something else must also be true. The principle cannot stop at the Constitution.

What a party owes its people

A political party is not the property of those who happen to lead it at a given moment. It is a trust.

It is held on behalf of the men and women who carry its card, wear its colors, fill its rallies, walk long distances in the sun, sit through the night at polling centers, and ask for nothing in return except that their voices be heard by the people they put in office. Leadership of a party is a tenancy. It is not an inheritance, and it is not a possession. Those who lead do not own the mandate. They administer it, and they answer for it.

A party that cannot hear its own members will not be believed when it claims to hear the nation.

The statement rightly observes that consultation must have consequences. That is a fine principle and a true one. But it cannot be true only in Parliament. It must be true in every room where decisions are taken in the name of other people, including our own rooms. We cannot ask citizens to speak and then decide in advance what we are prepared to hear.

If it is wrong for Parliament to disregard the expressed wishes of citizens on a constitutional question, then it is wrong to disregard the expressed wishes of citizens on any question on which they have already spoken. The ballot is the highest form of consultation known to a democracy. Its consequences cannot be optional.

That principle must govern the question that has occupied our party and our supporters since 24 June 2023. For three years, men and women across this country and in the diaspora have stood in the demand for electoral justice. They defended their votes, they bore real cost, and they placed their trust in commitments made to them that their democratic voice would not be quietly set aside. National commitments arrived at through dialogue after those elections remain unimplemented to this day. No leadership, in any party, has the moral authority to bring that struggle to an end, alter its course, or redefine its purpose without first hearing from the people in whose name it was undertaken.

And every day those commitments remain unimplemented, this country is being taught a dangerous lesson: that a people can be consulted and then set aside. That lesson will not stay confined to the matter that taught it. It will corrode every consultation that follows, including this one.

To our Members of Parliament

To every Member of Parliament, on both sides of the aisle, I say this without partisanship.

Let us be honest about how you came to that Chamber. Not one of you was elected by a constituency. You were elected from a district list, and your position on that list was determined inside a political party. That is not an accusation against any Member. It is a plain description of the system under which all of us contested in 2023, and it is the very system this Bill now proposes to write permanently into the supreme law of the Republic.

Consider carefully what that means. Under a list, a Member’s accountability runs upward, toward those who compile the list, rather than outward, toward the citizens who must live with the result. A citizen who is failed has no one he can name and no one he can remove. A Member who serves the people faithfully but displeases those who rank the list has no protection at all. This is not a technical matter of electoral administration. It is the difference between a Parliament that answers to the nation and a Parliament that answers to itself.

I know this argument is uncomfortable, because it is uncomfortable for all of us. I make it anyway, and I make it first about my own party. A system in which representatives answer to lists rather than to people is precisely how any leadership, in any party, comes to believe that it need not consult the people at all.

The arithmetic is public. Section 108(2) of the Constitution requires the affirmative votes of not less than two-thirds of all one hundred and forty-nine Members. That is one hundred votes. Fifty Members are enough to withhold passage, and our party alone holds more than fifty seats. On this Bill there will be no crowd to hide in and no majority to blame.

History will not record the whip. It will record the vote.

To my party, and to the nation

I say this with love for the All Peoples Congress and with no rancor toward anyone.

A principle that is invoked only when it is convenient is not a principle. It is a tactic. And the people of Sierra Leone can tell the difference. They have long memories and very short patience for words that are not matched by conduct. They will listen to what we say today. They will judge us by what we do tomorrow.

So let us mean it. Let us mean it in Parliament, and let us mean it in our own house. Let the standard we demand of the Government be the standard we accept for ourselves. Let consultation have consequences everywhere, or let us stop using the word.

The party’s statement closed with words I gladly adopt as my own:

Country first. Democracy always. The people must have the final say.

Those are the right words. Let them now become our conduct.

Dr. Samura Mathew Wilson Kamara
APC Presidential Candidate, 2023

My Sierra Leone, My Responsibility

KanuMartyn retweeted

Manchester United

@ManUtd

28 days ago

Back with the boys 🤜🤛

474

56K

894

Kanu Alie

@KanuMartyn

28 days ago

Hopefully a new Rashford that is determine more than ever. MR14 Rashford have a new number

Kanu Alie

@KanuMartyn

28 days ago

Santos has offered to fill the void left by Casemiro, who was released in June. He said: “So my qualities, I like and prefer playing more deep like a number six.” “So I try to help my teammates without the ball and with the ball. I love breaking the lines. “Casemiro, for me he’s like a legend. So now he’s gone from United and now I’m here. So I feel that I can do like Casemiro did in the last season and I’m here to do it.”

KanuMartyn's tweet photo. Santos has offered to fill the void left by Casemiro, who was released in June.

He said: “So my qualities, I like and prefer playing more deep like a number six.”

“So I try to help my teammates without the ball and with the ball. I love breaking the lines.

“Casemiro, for me he’s like a legend. So now he’s gone from United and now I’m here. So I feel that I can do like Casemiro did in the last season and I’m here to do it.”

Kanu Alie

@KanuMartyn

28 days ago

Marcus Rashford is back at Carrington 😍❤️ Boy try to be the star boy again

Kanu Alie

@KanuMartyn

30 days ago

"‘Rice production increased in 2025, raising self-sufficiency from 68% in 2023 to 73%,’ says President Bio. If the statistics are improving, why does rice affordability still tranga? 🤔" @julius_maadabio why you like lie so ba? Salone sorry oo

Kanu Alie

@KanuMartyn

30 days ago

The #mufc squad to take on PSG in 🇸🇪 Still no Benjamin Sesko but Joshua Zirkzee travels. Goalkeepers: Tom Heaton, Dermot Mee, Fred Heath. Defenders: Harry Amass, Dan Armer, Patrick Chinazaekpere Dorgu, Diogo Dalot, Ayden Heaven, Harry Maguire, Noussair Mazraoui, Luke Shaw, Leny Yoro. Midfielders: Bruno Fernandes, Jack Fletcher, Tyler Fletcher, Mason Mount, Andrey Santos, Youri Tielemans. Forwards: Amad, Shea Lacey, Bryan Mbeumo, Joshua Zirkzee.