ON THE SIXTH day of December 2024, the Honorable Supreme Court of the Republic of Liberia gave the final judgment in the Petition filed by the embattled house speaker Honorable Fonati Koffa, of the House of Representatives, Republic of Liberia.
THE PETITION ADDRESSED a significant constitutional conflict within Liberia’s House of Representatives. Therefore, my intent here is to break down step by step, analyzing the relevant constitutional provisions and providing clarity on the judgment for the Public.
The Key Constitutional Provisions of Article 49 of the Liberian Constitution that need understanding are the Election and Removal of the Speaker:
The House of Representatives must elect a Speaker every six years. The Speaker can only be removed for cause by a resolution supported by a two-thirds majority of the House members. This provision establishes the legal threshold for removing a Speaker and requires adherence to procedural and substantive requirements which is stated “for cause” in Article 49.
AS TO ARTICLE 33 of the Constitution, the Key words for our understanding is “Quorum for Legislative Business” which is also stated in Article 33. A simple majority more than half of the members constitutes a quorum to conduct business.
HOWEVER, THIS PROVISION governs the general functioning of the House, not the specific process of removing the Speaker or other officers as is being understood by the Public.
THE THIRD AND final, Article 20 of the Constitution of Liberia, our analysis is focused on the words “Due Process” as stated in Article 20:
No person shall be deprived of rights, privileges, or positions without a fair hearing and consistent with due process.
THIS REINFORCES THE procedural requirements necessary in any actions affecting individuals’ rights, including the removal of elected officials like the Speaker.
Now let’s take a look at the Supreme Court Judgment, which states in part in its conclusion. “Any sittings or actions by members of the legislature not in conformity with the intent of Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution are ultra vires.”
ULTRA VIRES MEANS “beyond the powers” or not authorized by law. The Supreme Court has declared that: Any actions that fail to meet the requirements of Articles 33 and 49 are void and lack legal effect. Therefore, Members of the House must conform to these constitutional requirements in their proceedings.
IT IS NOTEWORTHY to do an analysis and clarity, to answer the question of whether or not the Speaker’s Removal was lawful and was a procedural failure. The answer to this question is in the affirmative. The Constitution explicitly requires a two-thirds majority to remove the Speaker.
IF THE “MAJORITY block” failed to meet this threshold, their action was unconstitutional. Further, there was substantive Failure by “majority bloc” because the removal of the Speaker must be “for cause,” which implies a specific, valid reason must be documented. If this was not demonstrated, the removal was further flawed. Thus, the Supreme Court implicitly voided the removal by labeling it ultra vires.
ADDITIONALLY, THE ROLE of Article 33 of the Constitution, in this case, is to govern the quorum for conducting legislative business. While a simple majority can suffice for regular legislative actions, removing the Speaker requires compliance with Article 49 a two-thirds majority. The actions of the majority block, if done with less than two-thirds, violated Article 49 and are therefore ultra vires.
INTERESTINGLY, THE DRAFTER of the Constitution of the Republic of Liberia laid down the role of Article 20 in such matters. Therefore, the Speaker has the right to due process, which includes a fair hearing and a legitimate cause for removal. If the majority block bypassed these steps, it violated the Speaker’s constitutional rights.
THE ARGUMENT AND debate of the Public is the Judgment’s Ambiguity and why the Supreme Court did what it did. The Court refrained from EXPLICITLY STATING WHETHER the Speaker should be reinstated or the actions of the majority block were nullified. Instead, the Court emphasized the necessity of adhering to Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution. This indirect approach was intended to remind the legislature of its constitutional duties while avoiding overstepping into legislative matters.
HAVING MADE THE above analysis, let’s give the interpretation of the Supreme Court Judgment for Public Understanding. The Supreme Court clarified that: Actions taken without meeting constitutional thresholds are invalid.
IN THIS CASE, removing the Speaker without two-thirds support and valid cause violates the Constitution. Legislative sessions or decisions not meeting quorum or due process are also invalid. The Supreme Court Judgment left the Resolution of the problem to the House of Representatives.
THE MEMBERS MUST either: Reaffirm their actions with the required two-thirds majority and due process or Revert to the status quo, recognizing the Speaker as the presiding officer, until proper procedures are followed.
WHAT ARE THE implications for Both Parties? The majority block must meet the constitutional threshold of two-thirds and “for cause” to remove the speaker validly. Meanwhile, the Minority Block, represented by the Speaker, remains the presiding officer until properly removed in accordance with the Constitution.
Conclusion
BASED ON THE analysis, it can be concluded that the public outcry for clarity is valid because the Court’s judgment avoided directly declaring the Speaker reinstated, relying on constitutional principles to guide legislative actions. However, the core takeaway is that any unconstitutional actions are null and void, and the Speaker’s removal did not meet constitutional standards.
THE JUDGMENT OF the Supreme Court of Liberia underscores the paramount importance of adhering to constitutional provisions in the governance of the nation.
THE ACTIONS OF the majority block in removing the Speaker and some standing committee members were unconstitutional because they failed to achieve the required two-thirds majority vote as mandated by Article 49 of the Constitution, and further failed to demonstrate a valid cause for removal, violating both Article 49 and Article 20 of the Constitution.
THEREFORE, THE SPEAKER’S removal is void ab initio from the outset. The Supreme Court’s Stance on Legislative Conduct declared that any actions or decisions by the legislature not in conformity with the Constitution are ultra vires and without legal effect. This serves as a reminder to all members of the House of Representatives to strictly observe the constitutional procedures.
ALTHOUGH THE JUDGMENT did not explicitly order the reinstatement of the Speaker, the logical implication is that the Speaker retains his position until a valid removal process is conducted in line with Articles 49 and 20 of the Constitution. The Court further clarified that legislative sessions and actions must adhere to quorum requirements under Article 33. It reaffirmed that the Speaker, as elected under Article 49, is the presiding officer unless properly removed.
WHILE THE SUPREME Court avoided direct interference in legislative processes, it emphasized the importance of constitutional compliance. This reinforces the principle of separation of powers while ensuring accountability within the legislature.
THE SUPREME COURT’S judgment effectively invalidates the removal of the Speaker and related actions of the majority block due to their failure to meet constitutional standards. The Speaker remains the lawful presiding officer until properly removed in accordance with the Constitution. This case highlights the critical need for due process, the rule of law, and respect for constitutional mandates in Liberia’s democratic governance.
