The Supreme Court of Liberia says ongoing leadership fight in the House of Representative presents a chaotic trend for the country.
By Lincoln G. Peters
Monrovia, Liberia, March 27, 2025- The Supreme Court of Liberia expresses serious concern here over what it terms “chaotic trend” at the House of Representatives in the ongoing leadership impasse. The Court raised the concern while entertaining legal arguments in a Bill of Information filed by embattled Speaker J. Fonati Koffa.
On Wednesday, March 26, 2025, the Supreme Court entertained arguments from the majority bloc led by Regime Speaker” Richard N. Koon and the minority bloc of embattled Speaker Koffa, who has legally challenged his removal.
However, the various Justices, especially Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene Gyapay Yuoh disagreed with the majority bloc arguments and asked several questions that went unanswered by the Koon-led majority.
The Supreme Court notes that the bill of information is a fact that shows that the majority bloc violated its mandate, because Deputy Speaker Thomas Fallah has no right to preside over session when the constitutional Speaker Koffa is around and available.
Also, it’s not a practice that the constitutional speaker sits in the regular chamber of the House, while his Deputy presides over another session, despite not having a quorum.
Responding to issue that has to do with signing of a resolution of vote of no confidence, the Court says they will not give such information attention because there is a law and procedures in the Constitution of Liberia that provides for functional operation of the House and how an elected Speaker or officials can or should be removed.
The High Court explains that firstly, the Body should meet in a session, request that the Speaker step aside, and give him due process to whatsoever allegation brought against him before signing a resolution.
In the instance case, it wonders whether due process was accorded the embattled Speaker, adding that any action that breaches the Constitution is subject to judicial review.
The court further wonders why if Speaker Koffa were removed and another team comes out and passed a vote of no confidence in the majority bloc and began holding separate sessions, will it be a good example for the country’s system.
“Now, why can’t they go under the Speaker since they are fifty and raise the motion for his removal? With that, the law can make him step aside, in that when you come here, while he is still sitting and opening another session is not the law. Now, how do we solve the stability in the House and the governance system because this is causing chaos? We saw the fire incident and several others. However, now that this bill of information is before the Supreme Court, we will see how the Minister of Justice will interpret this one. Matter suspended and ruling reserved, pending notice of assignments.” The Supreme Court concludes.
During the hearing and after the case, both parties noted their representations and were later given minutes to present their arguments and legal reliance.
One of the lead lawyers for the minority bloc, Cllr. Arthur Tamba Johnson urges the Supreme Court to provide enforcement and clear interpretation regarding its December 6, 2024, ruling into the House’s impasse.
Cllr. Johnson notes that they have come for the court to enforce its ruling of December 6, 2024, but the Court argues its role is to provide the law, while enforcement of the law is done by the Executive Branch of government.
However, Cllr. Johnson counters, citing examples where the Court had reviewed and enforced its action or ruling in some cases, as mandated in the Supreme Court Revised Law of Court.
Following his argument, the full bench ordered that the petitioner provides his legal reliance or justifications to his petition. Cllr. Johnson references the Revised Law of the Court.
According to him, Part (1) 12(a) of the Revised Law of the Supreme Court prevents decision in the execution of the mandate of the court.
” Part (1) 12″a” of the Revised Law of the Court particularly prevents whosoever from interfering with the judgment and mandate of the Supreme Court. In this case, the whosoever and anyone that is interfering with the Court mandate is the majority bloc, for which we are here”, he says.
But the Bench also requests that he clearly points out the functions of the bill of information, to which the counselor explains that the bill of information is there to provide review and action regarding improper and obstructive action that impeded the December 6 ruling of the Supreme Court.
“Finally, I pray that this Court grants our petition, as prayed in our amended bill of information before this court”, Cllr. Johnson prays.
Meanwhile, the Respondent, represented by former Grand Cape Mount County Senator, Varney Sherman and others pray that the Court dismisses the bill of information, which they describe as reckless and unfounded.
Cllr. Sherman in his argument discloses that embattled Speaker Koffa refused to honor the request from the majority bloc to join his colleagues in session after he (Koffa) was aware that they have passed a vote of no confidence against him.
Therefore, he notes that the law and Constitution provide that when the Speaker is absent, the Deputy Speaker may preside and conduct session, something, Cllr. Sherman notes, the majority bloc followed and elected leadership.
“Now, we pray that this court grants us our prayer as mentioned in our response to this amended bill of information”, he also prays before the High Court.
Both parties are returning to wait on the final opinion of the Supreme Court in this matter that has brought the First Branch of the Liberian government, specifically the House to disrepute and disdain. Editing by Jonathan Browne
