By Hun-Bu Tulay
Contacts: +231-777-111-032/886-517-356
Email: ntevoma@gmail.com
“Truth can often be elusive in our current times, and misinformation is deeply entrenched. It takes a discerning mind that values truth to navigate through these complexities.” From a book Political Dinosaurs Nearing Completion by the author.
On June 30, 1905, a promising young man, just twenty-six years old, published a groundbreaking scientific paper titled “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper” (Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies). This work introduced his theory of Special Relativity and was featured in the German Physics Journal, Annalen der Physik. The paper was reviewed by one hundred and fifty scientists, ten of whom provided their interpretations. The paper’s author was made aware of these critiques and believed that no one could explain his ideas more effectively than he could. His perspective was that interpretations by others might often be partial. This young scientist was Albert Einstein, a monumental figure in the fields of physics and mathematics in the 20th century.
The Truth
As we reflect on Liberia’s trajectory, several key questions continuously arise: “Do Liberians genuinely seek to hear the TRUTH?” If the answer is affirmative, we must consider whether the current generation possesses civility and decency to embrace the truth and rise above past tendencies to overlook it. It is crucial that we engage with these inquiries earnestly if we wish to address the current challenges within the House of Representatives. If we hold true to the first verse and the fifth stanza of our National Anthem, which emphasizes unity and the pursuit of liberty, we must ask ourselves whether we are truly living up to these ideals as a nation. Let us take time to examine our country’s historical context thoughtfully.
Who is the best interpreter of a written document?
Much like the aforementioned physicist, numerous legal thinkers have endeavored to interpret the Supreme Court’s ruling or opinion. Interpretations have varied based on alignment, leading to claims of victory from different sides. Yet, for those of us who approach these matters from a neutral standpoint, the essential question remains: do we possess civility and decency to accept whatever truth may arise? It raises a pertinent point: why not engage directly with the court that issued the ruling? There seems to be a reluctance from both factions to do so, perhaps because they each favor interpretations of truth that align with their positions.
What the minority block should have asked for
We acknowledge that the minority group has submitted a Bill of Information to the Honorable Supreme Court. However, we must thoughtfully consider whether this was the most appropriate course of action. A Bill of Information is typically a legal document that formally charges someone with a crime, and if legal experts agree on this definition, it may suggest that a reevaluation is warranted. It would be beneficial for the Legal Team of the minority group to enhance their approach and avoid potential misunderstandings. The court will not give you what you did not ask. In our perspective, a Bill of Clarification regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling would have been more suitable. Such a bill seeks to clarify any ambiguities surrounding a prior order or ruling that the parties involved do not fully comprehend.
Many readers may recall our earlier discourse titled “Bad Lawyers and Good Lawyers,” highlighting the challenges posed by a number of less effective legal practitioners in Liberia, contributing to unfortunate outcomes in various cases.
Article 49 of the constitution
If the minority block legal team had used this article to their advantage, the court would have responded differently. One significant issue that appears to have been overlooked in the minority group’s most recent petition relates to the first sentence of Article 49: “The House of Representatives shall elect once every six years a speaker who shall be the presiding officer of that body, and the deputy speaker, and such other officers as shall ensure the proper functioning of the House.” This article clearly stipulates that all seventy-three Representatives should convene to elect a speaker not a majority Block or minority block as was done in electing Representative Richard Koon. If this fundamental question was posed in the initial petition, the High Court would have addressed whether a faction or block of members of the House of Representatives the legal authority and capacity has to elect a speaker independently.
The Minister of Justice Act is contemptuous.
If the parties genuinely wish to uncover the truth, it would be prudent to petition the Supreme Court for clarification on the ruling. Moreover, it would have been more appropriate for the Minister of Justice, as dean of the high court, to formally request such clarification rather than providing an opinion. The minister’s opinions are typically reserved for constitutional matters and the interpretation of laws. In various jurisdictions, conflicting opinions from a minister may lead to serious concerns, and it is important to uphold the integrity of our judicial process. Councilor Christian Abayomi Cassell was disbarred by the high court in 1961 for a lesser action. Associate Justice Pierre read the opinion of the high court.
The High Court Ruling
As you delve into Pages 27 to 34, those who embody intelligence and a quest for truth will recognize that there is no ambiguity within the opinion. It is not uncommon for individuals due to limited comprehension and a struggle with the English language, which may not be their native tongue to misconstrue written documents. In the High Court ruling, continual references to Articles 33 and 49 illuminate this point. Article 33 emphasizes: “A simple majority of each House shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, yet a lower number may adjourn and compel the attendance of absent members. When the House of Representatives or the Senate convenes in a joint session, the presiding officer is the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Article 49 notes: “The House of Representatives shall elect a Speaker every six years, who acts as the presiding officer, alongside a Deputy Speaker and other necessary officers to ensure the proper functioning of the House. The Speaker, Deputy Speaker, and other elected officers may be removed for cause, which requires a resolution signed by two-thirds of the entire members.” Rule 10 of the House underscores the process of removing elected officers (two-thirds of the entire members).
Additionally, Article 38 offers powerful insight: “Each House shall adopt its own rules of procedure, enforce order, and expel a member for cause with two-thirds of the entire membership. Each House shall create its own committees and subcommittees, ensuring that committees on revenue and appropriations consist of one member from each county. All rules adopted by the Legislature shall uphold the principles of due process as outlined in the Constitution.”
Chapter III, Article 20-a boldly states what due process is: “No person shall be deprived of life, security, property, privilege, or any other right granted by election except through a hearing judgment consistent with this Constitution and due process of law.”
The pathway for removing a Speaker in Liberia is clearly defined:
According to the Constitution, the Speaker’s removal requires: 1. initiating a resolution stating the reason (s) for removal signed by two-thirds of the entire members of the House. In this case by 49 members of the House of Representative. 2. Following due process, which ensures fairness in legal matters, civil and criminal alike. Adherence to procedures laid out by the Constitution, statutes, and judicial practices including notice of rights is essential to prevent prejudicial or unequal treatment. 3. Due process requires obtaining two-thirds votes from the entire membership, not merely an ordinary majority of those present and voting. It is alleged that 50 members of the entire House signed the resolution but only 43 were present on the day of removal. This action contradicts Article 49 of the constitution. Secondly, it is also alleged that there were NO VOTES TAKEN. How do we know that the signatures on the resolution were not by someone sitting in one room in West Point? Even in jury trial, when a verdict is reached and signed by the jury and given to the presiding Judge. The Judge often asks members of the jury if each of them agree with the verdict. This represents a vote for each.
The crux of the matter is whether these processes were upheld in the removal of Speaker Koffa. We believe these missteps may be what the High Court refers to as ULTRA VIRES. This signifies actions taken beyond the legal scope of authority, actions such as removing the Speaker, electing a new one, reconstituting House Committees, and suspending House Members.
Ultimately, the High Court’s order for all parties to revert to their status quo. This phrase means: when a suit is instituted then the person who is holding the possession and title shall retain such possession and title until the suit is disposed of. Since each party is claiming victory, this implies that the status quo still holds. The High Court could view such actions of some members of the House as contemptuous.
As we conclude, we would like to reflect on the insightful words of President Joseph N. Boakai regarding Sound and Honest Leadership: “We have the opportunity to change the course of history in this country. As I have always said, our country holds many promises, and it is up to us as a generation to seize it and transform our nation so that everyone has a fair chance at a better livelihood. I reiterate my belief that Liberia is not lacking in resources, but rather, the challenges we face stem from a deficit of SOUND and HONEST LEADERSHIP. The elections are behind us; now is the time to engage in meaningful work.”
Let us engage in a thoughtful analysis of this statement. What constitutes Sound Leadership? It is characterized by decision-making that prioritizes the welfare of the people and aims to uplift them from poverty. Honest Leadership involves transparency, sincerity, and direct communication with all stakeholders. It also embodies a willingness to acknowledge mistakes and grow from them. The crucial question remains: Do we, as Liberians, recognize these qualities in the leadership of our past and current presidents? Words carry little weight if they are not backed by consistent actions. Maybe it is time to acknowledge the mistake we have made in handling the crisis in the House of Representative and turn the page. If we do not, this will continue up to the end of January 2025. And we may end up in a constitutional crisis because at the President Annual Message, who will be the presiding officer? Koffa or Koon.
Conclusion
In closing, it is important to note that it is not always the most intellectually gifted or vocal politicians who endure, but those who are adaptable and responsive to change who leave a lasting impact on their constituents. President Boakai, it may be beneficial to re-evaluate the composition of your legal team at both the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of State for Presidential Affairs as well as some of your ministers. Prudence and reflection may guide us through the challenges ahead. President Boakai, you are surrounded by Robin Hoods and Illiterates of the 21st century. Just like President Tolbert was. President Boakai, please as the Chief Law Enforcement officer of the country, do not use the security against the representatives. Many African Leaders did the same and it did not end for them.
Recommendation:
For the greater good of the nation, we encourage J. Fonati Koffa to take the right steps for Liberia following the High Court clarification, which could potentially benefit him. This may entail stepping aside and allowing a fresh election to take place. Likewise, we implore President Boakai to demonstrate true leadership by requesting Richard Koon not to contest the forthcoming election for Speaker. The country deserves a speaker who will bridge the divide between the Majority and Minority Blocks; either Koffa or Koon holds the potential to accomplish this unifying vision.
Beware of the Ides of March.
