Monrovia-President Joseph Boakai’s action of smartly rebuffing the ruling of the Supreme Court is being likened to similar action by his American counterpart, President Donald Trump who is also accused of smartly rebuffing the ruling of the US Supreme Court over the deportation of a man.
It is being wondered in both social and political circles as to whether President Boakai is now acting like or steadily taking the colors of President Trump in relation to their ostentatiously dismissive approaches to rulings of their respective Supreme Courts.
Just as President Boakai is accused of endeavoring to cold shoulder or sidestep, finding it uneasy to accept and honor the rule of law (ruling of the Supreme Court) concerning the leadership impasse at the House of Representatives, so is President Trump appears to be finding it tetchy to follow through on rulings of the US Supreme Court when it comes to his deportation policy.
Identical in their forms of government, their actions are said to have run parallel to a kind of dictatorial leadership style that does not align with full concept of rule of law, a cardinal pillar of democracy they claimed to have subscribed to.
Trump side of the bargain
Currently there is a standoff between the rule of law represented by the courts and the administration over the wrongful deportation of a man by the Trump administration as part of the mass deportation campaign.
Since the US Supreme Court ruled in the case that Kilmar Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported to El Salvador and he should be returned to the US, the administration is digging in the heels not to do so.
Rather than taking the demanded practical steps in line with the Court’s ruling, President Trump continues to make public pledge about his respect the judiciary, which it is believed conflicts with mounting concerns over his administration’s compliance with court orders.
According to the Politico, Trump said he’s not defying a Supreme Court ruling to “facilitate” the return of a man wrongly deported to El Salvador, amid ongoing resistance from his administration to advance the Salvadoran native’s return.
Despite the Supreme Court ruling that the administration must “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return, the Trump administration has repeatedly dodged efforts to bring him back to the United States after his illegal deportation, with the administration arguing it merely has to allow his entry back into the country should Salvadoran authorities release him, Politico reported.
“I’m not defying the Supreme Court,” Trump said in an interview with TIME Magazine staff posted Friday. “I never defy the Supreme Court. I wouldn’t do that. I’m a big believer in the Supreme Court, and have a lot of respect for the justices.”
Democrats and legal experts have rallied around Abrego Garcia’s case, calling it a bubbling constitutional crisis that challenges due process and rights.
Beyond Abrego Garcia’s case, the Supreme Court blocked Trump from deporting a second wave of Venezuelan immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act last week.
The administration had dodged or played down previous rulings by some US judges over the Trump administration ‘illegal deportation’
And just as President Boakai is facing barrage of accusations for willfully and blatantly ignoring the Supreme Court ruling on the House leadership impasse, President Trump and his officials have been taken to gallops for what a judge termed ‘Willful and Bad Faith’ Stonewalling in Deportation Case.
A federal judge in Maryland, apparently losing faith, blasted the Trump administration last Tuesday for flouting her instructions to answer questions about what steps it had taken, and planned to take, in seeking the release of a Maryland man who was wrongly deported to El Salvador last month.
Judge Paula Xinis rebuke contained in an eight-page order, suggested she had lost her patience with the Justice Department’s pattern of stonewalling her in the case involving the deported man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia.
According to the New York Times, Judge Xinis accused the department of “a willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations.”
President Boakai’s side of the story
Hours after the Supreme Court rule against the Majority Bloc in the Bill of Information filed by Speaker J. Fonati Koffa and the Minority Bloc, President Boakai took to the airwaves, recommending and reaffirming his faith in the Majority Bloc, and pledged to continuously do business with them.
In a statement, President Boakai spoke of his acknowledgement of the Supreme Court ruling, and indicating how the problem at the House ‘remains unresolved,’ an indication that his administration was not prepared to let go its stance, when it comes to dealing with the Majority Bloc the government has been doing business with.
Instead of saying that his government will strictly adhere to the ruling, the President attempted to sidestep the main issue, saying “my government has already initiated broad consultations with relevant national stakeholders to determine the most appropriate and constitutionally sound path forward.”
In sharp rebuke of the ruling, the Liberian leader made it clear that his administration remains “fully committed to preserving the sanctity of our democracy and the principle of three separate but coordinate branches of government.”
The doctrine of separation of power is what members of the Majority Bloc have been preaching to justify the action of removing a duly elected Speaker in an unorthodox and illegal manner.
The President further stated: “Fellow Liberians, our Constitution and the Supreme Court have defined what constitutes a quorum for the conduct of business in the Legislature. We intend to vigorously uphold this vital principle of our constitutional democracy.”
President Boakai then hit the hammer on the nail, saying that his government will continue to work with the quorum that will ensure the full functioning of our government.
The President also tried to justified his statement by touching on the sentimental issue regarding the torching of the Capitol Building, which he describes as a national symbol of our democracy.
He said the government of Liberia, under his leadership, will not be held hostage by what he referred to as “narrow interests or acts of lawlessness,” adding “The work of governance will continue, and nothing will distract us from our duty to serve the Liberian people.”t
President stance on the issue has provoked huge and acidic disparagements from all walks of life.
Civil society actors and almost all of the opposition parties in Liberia are uninamous in criticising the President, accusing him of disrespecting the ruling of the Supreme Court of Liberia, and by extension the rule of law, one of the pillars of his ARRREST Agenda.
Cllr. Tiawan Gongloe, a renowned human rights law and former presidential candidate, urged the President and his administration to ensure that the Supreme Court’s judgment is honored without delay.
in its ruling, the Court stated that any action by the so-called majority bloc of lawmakers in the absence of Speaker J. Fonati Koffa presiding, even though he was present and not incapacitated, is unconstitutional and a violation of the rule of law.
In a statement, Cllr. Gongloe cited Articles 65 and 66 of the Liberian Constitution to remind the President that Supreme Court decisions are final and binding.
He criticized Boakai’s recent remarks about working with a legislative “quorum,” calling them a serious threat to constitutional order.
The learned Cllr. said: “The Court has spoken. There is no ambiguity. Speaker J. Fonati Koffa is the legitimate presiding officer of the House of Representatives.” ‘
He urged President Boakai to instruct all government officials to cease questioning the Court’s authority, to discipline any violators, and to direct all official communications through Speaker Koffa.
Commenting on President Boakai’s statement that they will do business with ‘constitutional quorum’, some concerned citizens expressed disappointment and described the situation as ‘sad times for the rule of law.”
Francis Gmah Toe, an ardent follower of politics, said “President Boakai’s action is not different from that of President Trump of the US who is sidestepping the legal regimes of the US to push his own agenda in the name of “Executive Orders.”
The US Constitution grants the President rights to issue Executive Orders to address national emergencies without necessarily seeking Congress’ approval.
“This is the same embarrassment Americans are experiencing in the conduct of President Trump,” Toe said, adding that “it is unfortunate President Boakai has chosen similar path.”
“The difference between the US and Liberia,” he said, “is that their democracy is grounded and solid unlike Liberia’s that is still being nutured after a very terrible war.”
Mr. Toe reminded President Boakai of his avows to make the rule of law the torch of his actions, adding “This is not what Liberians want to see and experience.”
Also adding his voice to the issue he said has the potential to create lasting social and political crack, Peterson Matthews, a resident of Caldwell, said how he is sick about Liberia and its way of politicking.
Matthews said it was wrong for the President to put the lives of Liberians in danger just to pursue his political interest. Asked what he meant by that, Matthews explained that President Boakai “is just determined to make Richard Koon, his partisan, Speaker of the House.”
“Just as Trump of preaching and pushing his “America First” agenda against all odds, President Boakai is pushing his Unity Party interest against all odds,” he indicated.
But whether President Boakai is ready to pay heeds to the growing appeals or change course as a result of disappointing accusations remains to be seen.
Until then, the public verdict is that President Boakai is proceeding on the wrong path by not respecting the ruling of the Supreme Court, and that he is not different from PROTUS (President of the United States), Donald Trump.
