Monrovia – The Liberian legal community is in the throes of a credibility crisis after a controversial statement by Cllr. Bornor M. Varmah, President of the Liberian National Bar Association (LNBA), sparked an internal revolt and sharpened questions over the Bar’s political neutrality.
By Selma Lomax, [email protected], Willie N. Tokpah, [email protected]
At the heart of the storm is Varmah’s assertion, in an April 29 press release, that the Court overstepped its authority by intervening in the leadership dispute within the House of Representatives.
According to Varmah, the ruling violates the separation of powers and political question doctrines, arguing that legislative disputes such as the removal or reinstatement of the Speaker fall squarely within the Legislature’s domain.
“This is simply a violation of the Political Question Doctrine,” the statement read, further warning that the Court’s decision risked inflating judicial power at the expense of legislative autonomy.
The LNBA’s objection also targeted the Supreme Court’s reading of Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution, particularly its interpretation of quorum and Speaker Koffa’s presence during legislative sessions.
The Bar insisted that “the designation of the Speaker as the sole presiding officer, even in the absence of a quorum, appears to overlook the procedural flexibility necessary for legislative operations,” and added that “the LNBA under such circumstances is constrained to disagree with the Supreme Court that Speaker J. Fonati Koffa was present and available for legislative business.”
But while Varmah’s statement attempted to strike a constitutional tone, it failed to unify the Bar. Instead, it exposed deep internal divisions and a growing unease about political bias within Liberia’s premier legal body.
The first blow came from within. LNBA Vice President Cllr. F. Juah Lawson openly dissociated herself from the statement and questioned its legitimacy. “I’m not going to own that statement because that statement is that of the President of the LNBA as an individual, and not the LNBA,” she said in a message to FrontPageAfrica. “I advised the President about getting to the Executive Committee… but he did not listen.”
That internal split was compounded by Varmah’s political history. A former Unity Party (UP) legislative candidate in Gbarpolu County who ran on the party’s ticket in 2017, Varmah’s critics argue that his political loyalties are now coloring his leadership at the Bar. The charge of partisanship, once whispered, has now become public and explicit.
Cllr. Moriah Yeakula-Kporpor, a prominent voice in the legal community, was especially scathing. “The statement read today is not only disappointing but ridiculous and squarely partisan,” she declared. “The President of the Bar must do the honorable thing and resign if he cannot separate his political commitment to the Unity Party from his duties.” She accused Varmah of attempting to transform the Bar into what she mockingly called the “LRBA—Liberian Ruling Bar Association.”
Yeakula-Kporpor, who supported Varmah’s candidacy for Bar President, expressed disappointment over what she sees as his failure to rise above politics. “While we do not fault him for his political affiliations and ambition,” she said, “we expect that he would stop pandering to his Political Party, prioritize the sanctity of the position he currently holds as President of the Bar, and uphold the Constitution and respect for the Rule of Law.”
Varmah’s critics argue that his attempt to shield the Legislature from judicial scrutiny is not only legally flawed but also politically dangerous. Atty. Armah Zolu Jallah, former Senate Pro Tempore, pointed out that even political bodies remain subject to constitutional review. “The separation of powers does not mean one branch is immune from legal scrutiny. The judiciary must intervene where actions violate the Constitution,” he noted, emphasizing that constitutional checks and balances must not be eroded under the guise of political independence.
Legal practitioner Saifuah Mai Gray also weighed in, warning that the LNBA’s suggestion for an independent mediation body to resolve the House dispute undermines the authority of the judiciary. “Liberia is a country of laws, not negotiations,” she said. “When the Supreme Court speaks within its constitutional authority, its ruling is binding on all, including other branches and professional bodies.”
Gray cautioned that setting aside judicial rulings in favor of dialogue creates “dangerous precedence” and compromises the ethical obligation of lawyers to respect the finality of Supreme Court decisions.
The fallout from Varmah’s remarks signals a deeper institutional crisis. A senior lawyer, speaking anonymously, described the situation bluntly: “The Bar cannot afford to be seen as an extension of any political party. If we lose that line, we lose the very foundation of legal independence in Liberia.”
Ultimately, the controversy is more than a legal squabble over constitutional interpretation — it is a test of whether Liberia’s professional institutions can resist political capture and preserve their integrity. For Cllr. Varmah, the fallout is not just reputational; it may define the future of his leadership — and the independence of the Liberian National Bar Association itself.
