Liberia-Now that the Supreme Court of Liberia has rendered its long-awaited judgment in the leadership spat at the House of Representatives, under-pressure House Speaker, Cllr. J. Fornati Koffa has called on all sides of the political divide to return to status quo, to do the Liberian people business, as there is “no victor and there is no vanquished” or loser in the matter that has discoloured the country.
After the long-haul of legal process – two different prohibitions filed with the Supreme Court of Liberia by the Koffa-led bloc to establish legal remedy to the situation at bar- Speaker Koffa, as per the Court’s latest judgment, made it clear that following the exhaustion of the legal realm, it was now time for the political realm.
He urged his colleagues to see reasons beyond the current commotion to work together in the national interest which he believes justifies their respective elections by their constituents to the National Legislature.
Rigmaroles concerning removal of Speakers at the House of Representatives since 2006 have ended on the political field, not necessarily the legal field of taking advantage of prescribed legal remedies to dispose of such matters.
But the current under-pressure Speaker Koffa, a venerated legal luminary contended that anything concerning his removal by any group of lawmakers should be channelled through the legal framework outlined in the constitution and the rules of the House.
Koffa’s compendious remarks of “it is time for the political realm after the legal realm” leaves many pondering over what he exactly meant by such ambiguous comments in an already volatile and polarized ruling rendered by the highest court of the land.
In a rather diplomatic and mature posture and tone, the embattled Speaker told a jubilant crowd of supporters Friday at the Capitol that the ruling has settled the matter, although he felt short claiming victory as far as the Court’s ruling is concerned.
“There is no victor, there is no vanquished,” the Speaker said in a significant move to calm the storm and restore sanctity and integrity to the House badly spotted by the ongoing saga.
Others tried as much as possible to self-interpret the comments as an expression of his readiness to let go the struggle once the opposing so-called ‘majority bloc’ duly adheres to the dictates of the Court’s ruling which many believed Favors the Koffa bloc as opposed to the other side.
Koffa has defied all odds to bow to pressure to resign his position, insisting that those seeking his removal should use the available legal contours.
Whether the self-styled majority bloc will respect and adhere to the Court’s ruling that any action contrary to Articles 33 and 49 are ultra vires will be established Tuesday when they return to the Capitol for Session.
Whether Speaker Koffa’s remarks are tacit expression of his plans to throw in the towel since he has exhausted the legal process, Liberians are disillusioned by what they considered as a vague judgment that provides no clarity to remedying the situation, but rather deepens the crisis and causes further polarization.
The Supreme Court in its ruling indicated “when this case was called for hearing, Counsellors James E. Pierre and Arthur Tamba Johnson appeared for the petitioners. Counsellors G. Varney Sherman, Sr. and Garrison D. Yealue, Jr. appeared for the respondents. Counsellors Augustine C. Fayiah, Solicitor General, Republic of Liberia, Jerry D. K. Garlawolu, Assistant Minister for Litigation, and Joel E. Theoway, Assistant Minister for Economic Affairs appeared for the Ministry of Justice.”
Having carefully examined the contentions of the parties, listened to the arguments on both sides, and considered the laws relevant thereto, the Court adjudged “the Supreme Court, pursuant to Article 66 of the Constitution “shall be the final arbiter of constitutional issues and shall exercise final appellate jurisdiction in all cases whether emanating from the courts of record, court not of records, administrative agencies, autonomous agencies or any authority, both as to the law and fact…”
It acknowledged its authority to decide constitutional issues arising out of internal dissensions among the members of the Legislature, as in the present case.
It went on to say “That it is the law in vogue that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of the entire document rather than a sequestered pronouncement because every provision is of equal importance and even where there is apparent discrepancy between different provisions, the Court should harmonize them if possible.”
“That this Court’s interpretation of Article 33 of the Constitution (1986), is that whether a simple majority is sitting or a lower number, in both cases a Presiding Officer, defined in Article 49 of the Constitution is the Speaker, and in his/her absence, the Deputy Speaker.” It further stated
According to the Court, in the event where the Speaker is presiding over a minority, the Constitution is devoid of the mechanism for how the minority is to compel attendance of absent members; and the Legislature has promulgated no enabling statute or standing rules setting forth the process for compelling absentee members to attend sessions as envisioned under Article 33 of the Constitution.”
Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court stated that it cannot do for the Legislature what is within its purview to do, as to do so will be a violation of the constitutional mandate on the separation of powers.
It added that 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.
It concluded by urging members of the House of Representatives to conduct themselves accordingly.
