By: Naneka A. Hoffman
Monrovia, Liberia, April 20, 2026| Public reaction continues to intensify following the expulsion of Montserrado County District #10 Representative Yekeh Kolubah from the House of Representatives, with citizens expressing sharply divided views on the decision.
The House voted 50–0 on Friday, April 17, 2026, to remove Kolubah from office, with a resolution signed by 49 of the House’s 73 members — precisely the two-thirds majority required under Article 38 of the 1986 Constitution to expel a sitting lawmaker.
The expulsion followed an investigation by the House Committee on Rules, Order and Administration (ROA), which acted on complaints filed by Montserrado County District #3 Representative Sumo K. Mulbah and Liberia National Police Inspector General Gregory O.W. Coleman. The allegations included gross misconduct, violation of the oath of office, breaches of House rules, and conduct deemed to have brought the Legislature into public disrepute, as well as concerns related to national security and stability.
The vote drew support from Speaker Richard Nagbe Koon, Deputy Speaker Thomas P. Fallah, the entire majority bloc, and a few members of the minority caucus. Notably, the action was taken despite a Supreme Court Justice-in-Chambers order directing Legislature to halt further proceedings pending a conference scheduled for today, April 20. Associate Justice Yussif D. Kaba had granted Kolubah’s lawyers a petition for a writ of prohibition on April 16, ordering House leadership to “stay all further proceedings and/or actions in the matter” pending the outcome of the conference. The Office of the House Clerk denied receiving any such communication from the Supreme Court.
Speaking exclusively with some citizens, Boakai Parker said, “I am not a supporter of Yeke Kolubah, and I will not support the reckless statement he made against the state.” However, he argued that expulsion may not be the best course of action. According to him, such a move could impose unnecessary financial strain on the country due to the cost of conducting a by-election. Parker also raised allegations that lawmakers who supported the decision may have received financial incentives, questioning whether taxpayer money could have been misused. “If huge amounts are being spent on lawmakers and millions more on a by-election, it will damage our already struggling economy,” he added.
George Dankwah described Kolubah as a disruptive figure, accusing the lawmaker of neglecting his responsibilities to constituents and instead engaging in inflammatory rhetoric. “He was elected to serve District #10, but instead, he insulted colleagues and made statements that could threaten national peace,” Dankwah said, applauding the government and lawmakers for what he termed a “timely intervention.” Dankwah further argued that Kolubah’s comments on national issues, including land matters, were inappropriate and beyond his scope as a legislator. He maintained that the expulsion reflects the will of the people and insisted that District #10 residents are ready for new leadership.
CDC Paypay said the move was a misuse of public funds and political manipulation. He alleged that the process was influenced by the Executive Branch, stating that resources could have been better spent addressing pressing national issues such as healthcare. “This is not right. Our people are suffering, yet money is being spent to remove someone from office,” he said.
Razzak Kanneh thanked the lawmakers for the decision, arguing that Kolubah’s conduct undermined national unity and disrespected the office he held. He described the expulsion as necessary to maintain discipline and protect the country’s peace.
Sonpon Dargbe emphasized the need for seriousness in national leadership, criticizing Kolubah for what he described as a pattern of inappropriate behavior. He noted that the decision could serve as a warning to other lawmakers to uphold the dignity of the legislature.
Meanwhile, Robert T. Harrison raised the broader implications of the action, warning that it could set a dangerous precedent for freedom of speech and democratic governance. He argued that lawmakers should not be punished for expressing opinions, particularly outside official sessions, and called the move a threat to democracy.
Harrison’s concerns are echoed at the institutional level. Legal observers warn that the decision could trigger a significant clash between the Judiciary and the Legislature. Prominent Liberian lawyer Tiawan Saye Gongloe has outlined the Supreme Court’s critical options: voiding the expulsion as illegal, holding House leadership in contempt, or ordering Kolubah’s reinstatement pending a proper hearing that satisfies due process. The Court’s next move is expected to set a far-reaching precedent for the separation of powers and the rule of law in Liberia.
The ROA committee has further recommended that, following his expulsion, Kolubah be turned over to the Ministry of Justice for possible prosecution, citing statements he allegedly made concerning the Liberia–Guinea border dispute, remarks his critics argued undermined national sovereignty. Kolubah has denied committing any wrongdoing and has said he heard reports that the Executive Branch was considering his arrest in connection with the matter.
As the Supreme Court conference convenes today, the legality of Kolubah’s expulsion hangs in the balance, along with broader questions about democratic governance, due process, and the limits of legislative power in Liberia.
