The National Legislature plays a pivotal role in the overall governance of Liberia because it is that body that has the constitutional mandate to enact laws, to levy taxes and other important governance functions.
The Constitution of Liberia, 1986, CHAPTER V, THE LEGISLATURE Article 34 gives the Legislature the power to perform at least twelve (12) things and these functions are perhaps the functions that make Liberia a sovereign nation.
Like the other two branches of the Government of Liberia, with a crisis at the Legislature, the country cannot continue to operate, hence stability in legislative functions is an essential requirement for the smooth functioning of the Liberian nation-state.
This has not been the case over the last few years with repeated situations of the forceful and illegal removal of the Speakers by some members of the House of Representatives.
History is now on the ugly side of the National Legislature of Liberia with the removal of three sitting Speakers of the House of Representatives and these removals have always been political rather than following the legal or constitutional requirements for removal of a sitting Speaker.
This practice dates far back to an interim administration, the National Transitional Legislative Assembly (NTLA) where Speaker George Dweh, his Deputy Speaker, Chair on Ways, means and Finance and others filed a Petition for Prohibition before the Honorable Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of their suspension following an inquiry by a committee headed by another colleague Isaac Manneh into allegations of corruption and administrative malpractices.
In this scenario even though the lawmakers, headed by Nimba County NTLA Member Zawolo Zwagelee requested the Supreme Court not to entertain the matter but the Court entertained the matter before passing on that where it has been claimed that the act of the legislature complained of related solely to its internal affairs and is therefore not subject to review, the court shall therefore determine only whether the legislative body has kept within the constitutional limits.
While the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to be the final arbiter of justice and the highest Court to entertain and interpret constitutional matters, there is a huge missing link between how the Supreme Court interprets constitutional matters when it comes to the internal events at the National Legislature.
In the Dweh’s case, his colleagues succeeded in removing him, howbeit it without following the legal and constitutional requirements.
Few years later, came the infamous Edwin M. Snowe removal as Speaker by his colleagues who held a separate sitting in Virginia outside Monrovia.
Snowe challenged his removal which was done through a resolution signed on January 15, 2007 by his colleagues under the nomenclature of Majority members of the House of Representatives who held sitting in Virginia.
Five days after the resolution by the majority members of the House of Representatives, Snowe filed a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Prohibition before Her Honor Gladys K. Johnson arguing that his removal was against his constitutional right to due process of law as provided in Article 20 (a) of the Constitution.
Snowe, who was at time a lawmaker for Montserrado County, also argued that his removal was contrary to Rule 42 of the Standing Rules of the House of Representatives of the 52nd National Legislature.
The Majority bloc in the Snowe case on the other hand contended that the Supreme Court should not intervene in the matter because the highest Court lacks jurisdiction mainly on grounds that the removal of the Speaker of the House of Representatives is a matter that is squarely vested in the members of the Legislature in line with the rules of that august body.
In the Snowe’s situation, the Supreme Court determined that the issue of the violation of the constitutional right of Snowe was the main issue the Court was called upon to make determination.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court said that as the final arbiter of justice, the Court was obliged to declare whether the constitutional rights of Snowe were violated and if the Court were to declare the act of Snowe’s removal as unconstitutional.
In the Snowe’s case, the Supreme Court further held that while members of the House of Representatives, by resolution of a two-thirds majority of members of the House, may remove for cause the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and other officers so elected, the exercise must be in conformity with Article 20(a) of the Liberian Constitution(1986). Any act inconsistent with Articles 20(a) and 49 of the constitution, will be unconstitutional.
Further, the full bench of the Supreme Court stated in Snowe’s case “we hold the respondents did not prove cause‟. The Court reasoned: “our jurisprudence provides that even where a defendant fails to appear, and a default judgment is prayed for, the plaintiff is under a duty to prove the facts constituting the claim. The Court therefore held that Petitioner Snowe`s removal was inconsistent with articles 20(a) and 49 of the Liberian Constitution (1986), and Rule 42 of the Standing Rules of the House of Representatives of the 52nd Legislature on Removal/Expulsion of members of the House”.
While the majority members of the 52nd National Legislature had already acted to remove their Speaker, the Supreme declared the action unconstitutional in its final opinion on the Petition filed by Snowe.
The Supreme opined “all acts taken by the respondents in the removal of petitioner Edwin M. Snowe, Jr., as Speaker of the House of Representatives, were unconstitutional and are hereby vacated”.
Even with the opinion of the Supreme Court, Snowe was still removed and the rest is now history.
In the current case, unlike the case with George Dweh, the Snowe case looks very similar to the current one because embattled Speaker Fonati Koffa has not been subjected to a formal inquiry by his colleagues, where he will be afforded the opportunity to provide defenses against the allegations made against him.
Until now there is no legislative committee that was setup to investigate embattled Speaker Koffa in an attempt to give him the right to due process as provided by the Constitution of Liberia. The term due process of law is synonymous with the law of the land, where every individual must be given the right to be heard before any decision is taken against such a person.
Embattled Speaker Koffa was out of the country when the whole process of his removal commenced and since he arrived, the majority bloc are yet to afford him the opportunity to respond to these allegations made against him.
There is no Committee report growing out of an investigation conducted against the embattled Speaker, it is therefore weird how the lawmakers who have the constitutional authority to enact laws will be the same group of people breaking the laws they enact.
In breaking the laws on the removal of Speaker Koffa, the lawmakers are setting many very wrong precedents which will continue to have adverse effects on the overall governance of Liberia. The majority bloc are grossly violating the constitutional principle of due process of law; these lawmakers are also bringing into question the powers of the Supreme Court to interpret constitutional matters for constitutional interpretations by the Supreme Court to be final and binding.
Even while the Justice- In –Chambers, His Honor Yamie Gbeisay has placed a stay order on further proceeding by the majority bloc in the ongoing removal saga of embattled Speaker Koffa, some lawmakers are publicly expressing that the majority bloc will proceed with their removal action in total violation of the mandate of the Supreme Court.
This action by the majority bloc is a complete disregard for the rule of law, respect for the Powers of the Supreme Court and the Constitution of Liberia when all the lawmakers took oath to protect and defend the constitution of Liberia.
Where there is no respect for the rule of law, chaos, destruction and underdevelopment are the order of the day and this is why the showing of lack of respect for upholding the rule of law by the first branch of Government is very worrisome and a very bad sign for Liberia.
Like Koffa, Snowe and Dweh, these were individuals but their removals signaled a lot about the overall rule of law, justice and governance system of Liberia.
It’s a completely ugly precedent by the some members of the National Legislature and like the case of yesterday, the Supreme Court may do little this time around to avert any possible removal of embattled Speaker Fonati Koffaa but the message is bad and clear that there is breakdown in the rule law and respect for the highest Court, something orchestrated by some members of the first branch of Government, the body that is constitutionally empowered to enact laws.
The removal of a Speaker is something that can be done legally and in adherence to the constitution, the rules of the House of Representatives and other legal requirements but doing so without adhering to the law has always been bad and it is still bad today and should not be encouraged by any Liberian who believes in the growth and development of the country.
Those elected by the people must not disobey the laws for which they were elected to enact, or else the country is doomed.
Even if the Honorable Supreme Court does not succeed this time in averting the removal of embattled Speaker Koffa, the ugly precedence of removing Speakers by breaking the law must stop!!
