Monrovia – The Supreme Court on Friday delivered its much-anticipated ruling in a packed courtroom, following last week’s arguments presented by lawyers representing both sides.
The case stemmed from a petition filed by Speaker J. Fonati Koffa and his allies, challenging actions by the Majority Bloc as unconstitutional. These actions included holding sessions outside the official House Chambers, removing Speaker Koffa, suspending several lawmakers, nullifying committees formed under the Speaker, and reconstituting new committees.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court said the matter presented was a constitutional issue, affirming its authority to exercise final appellate jurisdiction in all cases, including those originating from courts of record, administrative agencies, or autonomous authorities. The Court stated:
“The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to decide constitutional issues arising out of internal dissensions among members of the Legislature, as in the present case.”
Key Points of the Ruling
The Court clarified its interpretation of Article 33 of the 1986 Constitution, emphasizing that whether a simple majority or a smaller number is present, a presiding officer—defined in Article 49 as the Speaker or, in his/her absence, the Deputy Speaker—must oversee the House.
The ruling highlighted that if the Speaker presides over a minority, there is no constitutional mechanism for compelling absent members to attend. Moreover, the Legislature has not enacted any statute or standing rule to address this issue, as envisioned under Article 33. The Court underscored that creating such mechanisms lies within the Legislature’s purview, and the judiciary cannot intervene without violating the separation of powers doctrine.
It said: “That 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; and that under these circumstances, the Supreme Court 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.”
We celebrate victory, not of a block, but of a democracy embedded in the rule of law. In the next few days I will be reaching across the aisle to encourage my colleagues to return to work, do the Liberian people business, restructure the house, and contemplate my transition. To God be the Glory.
J. Fonati Koffa, Speaker, House of Representatives, RL
The Court declared: “WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, 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. Hence, members of the House of Representatives are to conduct themselves accordingly. The Clerk of this Court is ordered to inform the parties. AND IT IS HEREBY SO ORDERED.”
A lawyer, weighing in on the ruling, citing anonymity, said in law, ultra vires is a Latin term meaning “beyond the powers. “It refers to acts, decisions, or actions taken by a person or entity that exceed the authority granted to them by law, statute, or constitutional provisions. When something is described as ultra vires, it means that the action is legally invalid because it was taken without proper legal authority or outside the scope of the powers assigned to the person or body. Therefore, the court is saying the action of the majority bloc is not in line with the Constitution.”
Speaker Koffa Welcomes Ruling
Following the ruling, Speaker Koffa and his allies claimed victory, urging their colleagues to rejoin them in the main chambers to conduct the House’s business.
In a statement, Speaker Koffa said: “We celebrate victory, not of a block, but of a democracy embedded in the rule of law. In the next few days I will be reaching across the aisle to encourage my colleagues to return to work, do the Liberian people business, restructure the house, and contemplate my transition. To God be the Glory.”
The ruling is expected to pave the way for resolving the prolonged impasse and restoring normal legislative activities.
