— Article 48 and the question of legislative abandonment
Imagine hiring a group of people to do a job and that group of people spends an entire month doing anything else but the job they were hired to do — all while demanding full salary for the time. Would you cut their pay, fire them, or both?
The ongoing crisis within Liberia’s House of Representatives is not very different and raises an urgent question: should lawmakers who deliberately and unconstitutionally refuse to attend sessions be replaced? This question takes us directly to Article 48 of the 1986 Constitution of Liberia, which outlines the composition and tenure of the House of Representatives.
Article 48 stipulates that members of the House are elected for a six-year term, and that any vacancy created by “death, resignation, or otherwise” must be filled through a by-election. The use of the word “otherwise” in this Article is crucial. While “death” and “resignation” are clearly defined, “otherwise” offers room for interpretation. Could deliberate absenteeism — especially when it’s used as a political tactic that results in the paralysis of legislative business — constitute grounds for declaring a vacancy? This question is more relevant than ever in light of the recent actions by members of the House.
Though the Constitution does not explicitly define what “otherwise” entails, its inclusion suggests that circumstances beyond death or resignation could create a vacancy. In the current situation, where lawmakers have refused to perform their duties by boycotting legislative sessions, the case for considering deliberate absenteeism as a form of abandonment becomes compelling. Lawmakers are elected not to play political games but to represent their constituencies and conduct the business of the House. When they abandon their legislative responsibilities for personal or political reasons, they fail in their duty to their constituents and to the nation.
While the Constitution offers broad provisions for maintaining the functionality of the Legislature, Liberia’s Decent Work Act offers an interesting perspective when we consider how deliberate absenteeism might be treated as job abandonment. The Decent Work Act defines job abandonment as an employee’s failure to report to work for a specified number of days (ten working days) without a valid reason, thereby leading to the termination of employment. Though this law primarily applies to regular employees, the principle of job abandonment due to dereliction of duty can, hypothetically, be extended to the current behavior of the lawmakers who are boycotting the House.
In the case of these lawmakers, their deliberate and sustained absenteeism effectively mirrors job abandonment. They have neglected their primary duty — attending legislative sessions and conducting the business of the House — with unconstitutional reasons, driven instead by political motivations. The fact that their absence has led to the paralysis of legislative proceedings strengthens the argument that they are, in effect, abandoning their jobs.
While the Decent Work Act does not explicitly apply to elected officials, the principle remains relevant.
These lawmakers were elected to represent the people, and their refusal to fulfill that mandate calls into question their continued occupancy of their seats. If an employee can lose their job for abandoning their post, should the same not apply to lawmakers who intentionally refuse to perform their duties?
The paralysis in the House of Representatives caused by the majority bloc’s absenteeism is not just a political issue—it’s a constitutional crisis. In a democracy, representatives are elected to serve the people, and when they fail to do so, the people suffer. The Constitution provides a mechanism for restoring accountability in the form of by-elections.
If lawmakers continue to refuse to attend sessions, thereby holding the legislative process hostage, should they not be considered to have vacated their seats? After all, they are no longer fulfilling the basic requirements of their office. The use of by-elections in such a scenario would not only restore functionality to the House but also send a strong message that elected officials cannot abandon their duties without consequence. It would empower the people to remove lawmakers who are failing to serve their interests and replace them with representatives who are committed to the legislative process.
By-elections would allow voters — the ultimate source of political power in Liberia — to hold their representatives accountable. If lawmakers neglect their duties, the people have the right to intervene and elect new representatives who will serve their interests. In the current context, where absenteeism is being used as a political weapon, by-elections could provide a solution that puts power back in the hands of the people.
Liberia’s Constitution is clear about the responsibilities of lawmakers, and the current crisis in the House of Representatives raises important questions about accountability. Article 48 provides the framework for filling vacancies, and it is time to consider whether lawmakers who abandon their duties should be replaced through by-elections.
By-elections would not only restore functionality to the House but also empower the people to hold their representatives accountable. It is time to explore this option as a means of ending the current legislative paralysis and ensuring that those who refuse to serve the people are replaced with representatives who will.
