The confirmation hearing of Chief Justice Designate Justice Gbeisay was concluded on his rehearsed dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court’s ruling on former Speaker Koffa’s bill of information in May this year.
By Lincoln G. Peters
Capitol Hill, July 17, 2025: Chief Justice-designate Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay remains firm in his position that the Supreme Court ruling in favor of former Speaker Fonati Koffa was illegal and unconstitutional.
The incoming Chief Justice voiced his dissent to the Supreme Court ruling, which granted the now former speaker Bill of Information while mandating and ordering the majority bloc of “Regime Speaker” Richard N. Koon to respect the Court’s ruling and act accordingly during the House’s prolonged impasse.
The ruling came months after the Supreme Court, in its landmark ruling on Friday, December 6, said, “Any sittings or actions by members of the Legislature not in conformity with the intent of Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution are ultra vires and void.
On March 3, 2025, the now-former Speaker Koffa filed a Bill of Information, mandating and ordering the majority bloc of “Regime Speaker” Richard N. Koon to respect the Court’s ruling of December 6, 2024, and act accordingly.
On April 23, 2025, the Supreme Court granted Koffa’s Bill of Information while mandating and ordering the majority bloc of “Regime Speaker” Richard N. Koon to respect the Court’s ruling and act accordingly.
However, addressing the issue during his confirmation hearing this week, Justice Gbeisay maintains that the Supreme Court decision to grant Koffa a bill of information was in error.
‘’In the instance case of Koffa that you just talked about, it is an issue that I personally believe was more political than legal. If you examine the ruling that was delivered carefully, it was intended to declare the rights of the person before us, and we did so.
We told him that you are a speaker, but you don’t have a quorum as the law provides. To the majority, we told them that they are in the majority, but they don’t have the speaker as the law provides.
Subsequently, one of the parties came back to the court on bill of information asking us to interpret our decision. Now, my question is what was there to interpret. Under the law, in a declaratory judgment, the rule of the Supreme Court says you can only come to us if we give a judgment and mandate you to do something that was done wrongly. So, because we didn’t give a mandate, therefore, for one party to come back to us, in my mind, it was illegal,” he explained.
Meanwhile, members of the Liberian Senate appear to have given the Chief Justice-designate a green light, signaling his potential confirmation.
On Tuesday, July 15, 2025, the Liberian Senate concluded his confirmation hearing in an unprecedented manner as several senators including the Chair of the Judicial Committee, Sinoe County Senator Augustine Chea endorsed the nomination of Associate Justice Gbeisay, while committing to ensure that he is confirm by the senate.
He argued that the Chief Justice designate is competent, has an in-depth understanding of the country’s constitution and legal process, and possesses unmatched integrity.
Other senators who verbally and publicly committed themselves to voting for the Chief Justice-designate, apart from those who expressed body language gestures following the grilling, are Rivercess County Sen. Bill Tweahway, Lofa County Sen. and Co-Chair of the Judiciary Committee, Joseph Jallah, Sen. Momo Cyrus, Montserrado County Sen. Abraham D. Dillon, Grand Kru County Sen. Albert Chie, among others.
The Judicial Committee Chair, while concluding the hearing, asked the Chief Justice-designate to provide his legal interpretation of domicile and residence, which are eligibility requirements for contesting a public election.
He went a little further, expressing his fullest commitment and support to the Chief Justice-designate, his former classmate at the Louis Arthur Grimes School of Law, saying, “Our class was one of the best classes at the Louis Arthur Grimes School of Law, I must admit. The Chief Justice Designate was a classmate of mine. I give you my support, sir,’ Sen. Chea stated.
Responding, Justice Gbeisay said that the Supreme Court has an interpretation of what constitutes a domicile and residence; however, since he doesn’t have the interpretation off-hand, he did not want to go contrary to that ruling.
‘’But, speaking to you from my legal interpretation as I understand it, to be domiciled, you do not necessarily have to be a resident in the area, but you must be a person whose presence has been seen in that place for a period prescribed by law.” He argued.
“That presence,” he continues, “doesn’t necessarily mean your physical presence. Because you can be in Monrovia while your family is in Grand Gedeh, it serves as your domicile. A person can have an official domicile in one place and be a resident in another. So, the Supreme Court has provided interpretation, and so I don’t want to go contrary. I don’t know if you can have two domiciles by law.’ He stated.
Following the completion of his opinion, he was again asked to provide his legal interpretation of the doctrine of the separation of powers, while urging him to interpret the phrase “separate, coordinate branches of government” within the context of Article 3 of the 1986 Constitution of Liberia.
Providing his opinion, he stated that when a matter is in court, it doesn’t extend to coordination as referred to in the constitution, which he believes will be considered and taken as an interference. -Edited By Othello B. Garblah.
