— Temple of Justice, Capitol Building in imminent faceoff as“ Majority Bloc” accuses High Court of interference, intimidation, but its members remain resolute: “We will go to Session on Tuesday”
Members of the Majority Bloc, comprising lawmakers seeking the removal of House Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, have vowed not to listen to a recent writ of prohibition that bans them from conducting legislative activities on the grounds of the Capitol. Some members of the group have said that the move by Associate Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay to halt their activities for nine days is not only unlawful, but a glaring form of bullying—and that they won’t succumb to such a blatant form of intimidation.
Associate Justice Gbeisay, which is the Justice in Chamber, issued a writ of prohibition halting members of the majority bloc from convening session in a separate chamber of the Legislature.
The writ, issued on Friday, mandates that the lawmakers cease further proceedings until after a scheduled conference on Monday, November 4, 2024 to address a petition filed by Speaker Koffa, who claims procedural and legal missteps in the resolution to unseat him.
The lawmakers expressed disapproval of the Associate Justice’s actions, perceiving them as exceeding his jurisdiction.
“We are in no way prepared to listen to that Justice. No one is going to make us cower into submission. We know the game that is being played and we will not fall for it. We will stand our grounds,” one of the leaders of the ‘Majority Bloc’ told the Daily Observer in a phone interview. “There is a certain clique that has been controlling everything in this country for which nothing is going. When people want to stand up to one, the others will start to come at you through every means possible. We will not be intimidated by them. We will stand and speak for our people.”
Following the Supreme Court’s mandate, Bong County Representative Foday Fahnbulleh, a leader of the Majority Bloc, stated that legislative activities would persist without interruption. Representative Fahnbulleh contended that the writ of prohibition interferes with the constitutional authority of the Legislature, noting that Justice Gbeisay’s involvement challenges the principle of separation of powers as enshrined in Article 3 of the Liberian Constitution.
“The Justice’s interference goes beyond his constitutional role,” Fahnbulleh said on Spoon Talk, a popular talk show, emphasizing the Legislature’s exclusive right to self-governance in line with Article 38, which allows each House to manage its internal affairs, including disciplinary actions.
In their statement, the lawmakers affirmed their commitment to constitutional provisions, specifically pointing to Article 33, which stipulates that a Simple Majority constitutes a quorum for legislative sessions. They asserted that the 43 members present easily exceeded the 37-member quorum requirement. Fahnbulleh reiterated that the group consistently met the quorum threshold in all sessions following the decision to remove Speaker Koffa, rejecting Justice Gbeisay’s characterization of them as a “Majority Bloc” as inaccurate.
“We are plenary because the constitution gives the majority the right to transact business on behalf of the Liberian people. We are not a block.”
Moreover, Representative Fahnbulleh argues that their actions align with Article 40 of the Constitution, which governs the legislative process and prohibits either House from adjourning for more than five days without consent from the other.
The Justice’s directive, Fahnbulleh contended, enforces an adjournment of the House for over 9 days, compromising the House’s function and undermining its constitutional prerogatives.
“Our 43 members will continue to meet in session, receive and discuss the writ,” he affirmed.
Legislative Contempt, Potential Repercussions
Amidst the discord, several lawmakers are pointing to Article 44 of the Constitution, suggesting that Justice Gbeisay’s writ may indicate “legislative contempt” by obstructing House operations and impeding members from fulfilling their constitutional duties.
The Observer has learned that some lawmakers within the 43 are contemplating the possibility of raising impeachment charges against the Associate Justice if he continues to interfere with the House’s business in accordance with Article 43 of the Constitution.
Additionally, Representative Fahnbulleh criticized Justice Gbeisay’s handling of the writ, highlighting that it was addressed to Representative Samuel G. Kogar, who is the Chairman of the group, instead of Representative Clarence Gahr, the presiding officer.
Fahnbulleh clarified, “Honorable Kogar is not the presiding officer,” noting that Margibi County Representative Clarence Gahr has been presiding over legislative sessions since the majority decided not to convene under Speaker Koffa’s leadership.
The 43 lawmakers have declared their intention to gather on Tuesday, October 29, 2024, in the joint Chamber to conduct a session and deliberate on Justice Gbeisay’s writ during a plenary meeting, affirming their commitment to ensuring that legislative activities continue without disruption. Fahnbulleh has stated that the resolution endorsed by the majority is a legitimate manifestation of their views under Article 42, which provides lawmakers with immunity from prohibition, arrest, or detention concerning their legislative duties.
The move to oust Speaker Koffa, led by the majority faction, is based on allegations of misconduct, fiscal irregularities, leadership deficiencies, and other issues. Specifically, Count 3 of their resolution alleges that Speaker Koffa, while serving as Deputy Speaker of the 54th Legislature, significantly exceeded his budget and was suspected of engaging in questionable financial transactions. The resolution points to an expenditure surpassing the allocated budget during the fiscal year 2023 for the Deputy Speaker’s office.
This is evidenced by the alarming outrun of US$4,038,687 (actual money spent), a whopping US$2,936,159 higher than the amount of US$1,102,528 budgeted for the fiscal year 2023 for the office of the Deputy Speaker.
Speaker Koffa refutes these accusations and has stated his intention to remain in his position.
The lawmakers maintain that exceeding the budget constitutes a violation of the Budgetary Transfer Act of 2008 and a dereliction of duties assigned to the Deputy Speaker’s office, causing a loss of trust in Koffa’s leadership. Additionally, lawmakers have requested the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission to investigate Speaker Koffa for budgetary manipulation.
