MONROVIA – Former Nimba County lawmaker and legal expert, Worlea-Saywah Dunah, has sharply criticized the Supreme Court of Liberia’s recent opinion on the controversial Bill of Information concerning Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, describing the ruling as a dangerous departure from judicial tradition and a troubling intrusion into legislative independence.
In a strongly worded public commentary, Dunah accused the Court of omitting key facts that were essential to reaching a just and constitutional decision. Chief among those omissions, he argued, was the violence allegedly orchestrated by Koffa loyalists in October 2024, an incident which forced members of the House of Representatives to relocate plenary sessions to the Joint Chambers. According to Dunah, this critical context was necessary to validate the constitutionality of the legislature’s actions since the relocation, including the removal of Koffa and the subsequent seating of Speaker Cllr. Jonathan Fonati Koon.
“It’s stunning because the Supreme Court’s iron, unchangeable principle is the objective review of the entire facts of a case as the foundation for the application of the law,” Dunah stated. “But in this case, the court leaped over those facts and chose one angle to reach its conclusion.”
Dunah expressed particular concern about a statement from Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene Yuoh, who, in the Court’s opinion, suggested that justice must be viewed not only through the lens of the legal text but also as a reflection of the “people’s spirit.” Dunah called this language unprecedented and legally dangerous, noting that Liberian jurisprudence has consistently held that justice is grounded in the objective application of law to facts, not in vague interpretations of public sentiment.
He cited the symbolic blindfold on the statue of Lady Justice at the Temple of Justice as a testament to this principle, stating that “justice has never been about a vague, unfathomable mystical concept such as ‘people’s spirit’ it’s about people’s rights under the law.”
The former Judiciary Committee chair further criticized the Court’s failure to analyze ECOWAS legal requirements, including Article 18(g) of the ECOWAS Parliament Act, which mandates that national representatives to the regional parliament be elected. He argued that Koffa’s refusal to submit to legislative inquiry into this issue, among others, was a valid basis for his removal, an action the Court failed to properly weigh.
Dunah also questioned the procedural handling of the case, including the unexplained delay in hearing the Bill of Information for four months despite its serious constitutional implications. He noted that in the intervening period, Speaker Koon legally presided over the State of the Nation Address, led passage of major legislative instruments, and represented the country in official capacities, all with the apparent knowledge and acquiescence of the judiciary.
“What if a constitutional succession had placed Speaker Koon in the presidency?” Dunah asked, pointing to the potential chaos such retroactive rulings could provoke.
The former lawmaker argued that the Court’s failure to condemn the initial October violence has now emboldened similar actions, referencing the vandalism at the Capitol the day after the ruling on April 24, 2025.
Citing Justice Yamie Gbeisay’s dissenting opinion and referencing the precedent set in Lamco vs Azzam, Dunah called for a full rehearing of the case, stating that the Court must correct its “material mistakes of law and fact.” He warned that failure to do so would represent not only a legal misstep but a direct affront to the constitutional authority of the Legislature.
Dunah concluded by questioning the motivations of Chief Justice Yuoh, who is set to retire in May, and warned against her legacy being marked by what he termed “an untenable assault on the exclusive constitutional province and inherent powers of the legislative branch.”
“The legal text of the Constitution must be restored as the cornerstone of justice in this matter,” he declared, asserting that the Court’s opinion, as it stands, sets a dangerous precedent of judicial overreach and political entanglement.
