By Socrates Smythe Saywon | Smart News Liberia
MONROVIA – A constitutional debate has unfolded, with legal professor Cllr. Tiawan Saye Gongloe and Montserrado County District #3 Representative Sumo Mulbah presenting opposing interpretations of the law over calls to sanction Montserrado County #10 Representative Yekeh Kolubah.
The dispute, triggered by a petition reportedly linked to the Liberia National Police Inspector General, has sparked a national conversation about the limits of legislative authority, the role of the judiciary, and the protection of constitutional order.
In his widely circulated commentary, Gongloe described attempts to impeach or expel Kolubah over alleged treason as a fundamental legal error, insisting that such matters fall strictly within the jurisdiction of the courts.
“Treason is a criminal offense, not a political accusation,” Gongloe asserted, emphasizing that the appropriate response is “arrest, charge, and prosecution before a court of competent jurisdiction.”
He warned that any attempt by the House of Representatives of Liberia to determine criminal guilt would represent a dangerous overreach, undermining the doctrine of separation of powers enshrined in Liberia’s Constitution.
According to Gongloe, using impeachment or expulsion as a substitute for criminal prosecution would blur the distinction between political authority and judicial responsibility, setting a troubling precedent for governance.
Drawing on his experience as former Solicitor General, Gongloe pointed out that even sitting lawmakers accused of crimes were prosecuted through the courts, not removed through legislative maneuvers. “That is how accountability works in a constitutional democracy,” he stressed.
He further cautioned that allowing political considerations to override legal procedures risks weakening democratic institutions. “Politics without the control of the law is chaos,” Gongloe declared.
On the issue of free speech, Tiawan Saye Gongloe argued that controversial statements, including those perceived as offensive or unpatriotic, do not automatically constitute treason, noting that democratic systems must tolerate dissent.
He cited Bernie Sanders as an example of a lawmaker who has openly criticized government actions without facing criminal accusations, reinforcing the importance of protecting freedom of expression.
Gongloe also proposed a measured approach to the controversy, calling on President Joseph Nyuma Boakai to establish an independent commission of inquiry to investigate the claims linked to Kolubah.
He referenced the precedent of William R. Tolbert following the 1979 Rice Riots, arguing that such a process would ensure transparency and adherence to the rule of law.
However, Representative Sumo Mulbah has strongly rejected Gongloe’s position, offering a detailed rebuttal grounded in constitutional interpretation and legislative authority.
“While the judiciary maintains the power to admit and discipline attorneys and members, this does not preclude the legislature from her mandate to suspend and expel members with cause and due process,” Sumo Mulbah wrote.
He argued that Gongloe’s analysis overlooks the critical distinction between criminal prosecution and legislative discipline, maintaining that the Legislature retains the authority to regulate its own membership.
In his rebuttal, Sumo emphasized that expulsion is an internal disciplinary mechanism designed to preserve the dignity and functionality of the legislative body, separate from the quasi-judicial process of impeachment.
He traced the historical roots of impeachment to the English Parliament, explaining that modern democratic systems, including those modeled after the United States, recognize expulsion as a legitimate legislative power.
Citing Article 38 of Liberia’s Constitution, Sumo noted that each House has the authority to determine its own rules and punish members for disorderly behavior, including expulsion with a two-thirds majority.
“The act is regarded as a formal exercise of the House’s internal governance,” Sumo explained, stressing that such decisions are inherently political and legislative in nature.
He further argued that courts traditionally refrain from interfering in internal legislative matters due to the doctrine of parliamentary privilege and the classification of such issues as political questions.
However, Sumo acknowledged that judicial oversight is not entirely excluded, noting that courts may intervene if the Legislature violates constitutional provisions or denies a member due process.
Turning to the role of the Inspector General, Sumo defended the legality of petitioning the Legislature, citing Article 15 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to petition the government.
He maintained that in matters of national security, it is both appropriate and necessary for the executive branch to engage the Legislature, particularly when the conduct of elected officials is involved.
“When the Inspector General identifies activities that may undermine national security, the petition serves as a formal mechanism to invoke legislative oversight,” Sumo Mulbah argued.
He also highlighted the procedural safeguards within the House, noting that petitions are reviewed through committee systems before reaching the plenary, ensuring that decisions are not arbitrary.
According to Sumo, this structured process demonstrates that legislative action is not merely political, but grounded in constitutional procedure and institutional responsibility.
Despite their differences, both Tiawan Saye Gongloe and Sumo Mulbah agree on one point the need to protect Liberia’s democratic framework. However, they sharply diverge on how that framework should be applied in the Kolubah case.
