Monrovia-Concerns littered both social and political circles why President Joseph Nyuma Boakai hastily nominated Associate Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisayas the next Chief Justice pending Senate confirmation when current Chief Justice, Cllr. Sie-A-Neh Yuoh has not gone through the formal retirement ritual, officially ending her tenure.
Chief Justice Yuoh reached and celebrated her 70th birthday last Thursday, June 27, the constitutional age of retirement for Chief Justices and other judges of courts. But those with legal history indicated that hitting 70th does mean automatic departure from office in the absence of a formal retirement program during which the retirees bids farewell, bringing their reign to an end.
Article 72b of the Constitution states that “The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court and judges of subordinate courts of record shall be retired at the age of seventy; provided, however, that a justice of judge who has attained that age may continue in office for as long as may be necessary to enable him to render judgement or perform any other judicial duty in regard to proceedings entertained by him before the attained that age.”
While there’s no constitution enshrinement positing official retirement program for outgoing Chief Justices or judges, but it is made an issue precedence to show appreciation and honor the person’s services to the nation.
Justice Yuoh’s departure comes after more than two years at the helm of the country’s highest court, where she made history as the third female to serve as Chief Justice after Cllr. Francis Johnson Allison and Cllr. Gloria Musu Scott.
She was appointed in 2022 by former President George M. Weah, as a replacement of then retired Chief Justice cllr. Francis S. Korkpor. Her preferment shrouded in her decades-long legal experience and a reputation for independence in the Liberian judiciary.
During a relatively compendious leadership span, she demonstrated utmost diligence in reinforcing the principles of judicial integrity and constitutional governance.
The hasty Appointment of Justice Gbeisay
Consistent with Article 56(a) of the 1986 Liberian Constitution which grants the President the power to appoint and dismiss, the Liberian leader last week, in a move regarded too hasty, appointed Cllr. Gbeisayas replacement of outgoing Chief Justice Yuoh, depending he is confirmed by the Liberian Senate.
The appointment made literally three days after Chief Justice Yuoh’s birthday, confirmed and legitimized postulations that he (Gbeisay) was in a polled position for consideration, out of three to four other names that had been considered as well.
President Boakai, justifying while Gbeisay became his choice for the job, said he is a “distinguished jurist” whose nomination reflects “continuity and integrity in Liberia’s highest court.”
The President did not stop there in his justification for preferring Justice Gbeisay, but also praised him for his “exemplary integrity, profound legal acumen, and commitment to upholding the rule of law and the Constitution.”
More so, according to the President, Justice Gbeisay’s elevation is consistent with the administration’s goal to maintain stability and trust within the judicial system.
Speculations come true
Prior to the rather ‘hasty appointment,’ it was widely speculated and reported that Justice Gbeisay was at the peak of the President’s mind and watchlist of other jurists including Justice Minister Cllr. Oswald Tweh, former TRC Chairman, Cllr. Jerome Verdierand Cllr. Jamesetta Wolokollie, a long-serving Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Bench.
The decision, as gathered, followed weeks of serious consultations, background checks, persuasions and processes amongst both executives of the ruling Unity Party, and the Movement for Democracy and Reconstruction (MDR) of Vice President Jeremiah Kpan-Koung, with the Vice President reportedly pinning his boss to consider Justice Gbeisay for a greater political reward in 2029 when Liberians go to the poll to elect a new president.
NImba was an instrumental player and firm decider in the outcome of the 2023 elections in favor of the Unity Party, winning over hundred thousands votes ahead of then incumbent President George Weah and the Coalition for Democratic Change.
Hastily appointing Justice Gbeisay, many believe, is a kind of political reward also to the people of Nimba County for their support to the government, having played pivotal role in the President’s victory.
The Associate Justice preferment could be a boost to the government’s efforts to stamp its authority and unhindered control of the system as it pushes hard in the anti-corruption fight evidenced by ongoing prosecution both current and former officials of government allegedly involved in acts of corruption.
What happened earlier?
However, Justice Gbeisay shocked the legal circles during the House of Representatives leadership impasse when he dissented the Supreme Court’s ruling that favored former Speaker Cllr. Jonathan Fonati Koffa in the Bill of Information filed before, to throw light on its previous ruling dubbed ambiguous.
Gbeisay had earlier defended the Supreme Court of Liberia’s decision to snub President Boakai’s Annual Message of January during the peak of the leadership hullabaloo at the HoR.
During the opening of the February Term of Court in Sanniquellie, he said the highest court’s decision not to attend President Joseph Boakai’s national address was necessary to avoid further political complications in the country.
Justice Gbeisay explained said theCourt’s decision was based on the ongoing crisis in the House of Representatives, noting that the court had previously instructed the Legislature to resolve their internal issues, but to no avail, making the presence of the justices at the national address potentially exacerbating.
Justice Gbeisay said: “The situation in the House of Representatives is in crisis, and our presence at the address could have been seen as an endorsement of one of the Speakers.” He further added that “It could create additional conflict in the country, and the best course of action was for us not to attend.”
He further stated that attending the address could have been interpreted as a conflict of interest, particularly since the House currently has two competing Speakers.
“We told the House to resolve their problem, and our decision was to ensure that the court’s integrity remains intact,” he added.
His Dissent of the ruling
Contrary to defending and providing reasons the Court snubbed President Boakai’s Annual Message, Justice Gbeisay broke ranks with his colleagues on their opinion in the Bill of Information.
He described the ruling as a “profound departure from established law and judicial propriety,” and warned the Court had overstepped its bounds into the domain of the political branches.
“The case before us presents a quintessential political question, one that lies beyond the proper jurisdiction of this Court and squarely within the domain of the legislative or executive branches of government,” Gbeisay noted in his protest, tacitly rooting the general argument about separations of power and interference in the affairs of another branch.
This was principally the argument of members of the Majority Bloc in the leadership impasse that the Supreme Court was overstepping bounds by attempting to rule and intertain decision in the matter they considered political.
He argued that the Amended Bill of Information filed by members of the House’s minority bloc was orderly defective under Rule IV, Part 12 of the Supreme Court’s Revised Rules, stating “This rule limits Bills of Information to matters where a mandate of the Court is either obstructed or improperly executed.”
Gbeisay indicated that no such mandate existed in the Court’s prior judgment of December 6, 2024, which mandated members of the House to “conduct themselves accordingly.”
According to him, “The directive is clearly ministerial, limited only to the Clerk. It contains no enforceable instruction or mandate directed to the Legislature.”
Justice Gbeisay feared that by interpreting the judgment as a mandate, the Court had opened the door for litigants to seek re-interpretation or even reversal of decisions through informational filings.
The Chief Justice nominee declined to sign the Court’s final opinion and called on future justices to revisit and potentially overturn the ruling, adding “I respectfully decline to append my signature to the majority opinion,” he concluded. “I further urge this Court, or a future Bench, to revisit and recall the present judgment.”
Appointment seen as appeasement
It is believed that – apart from any possible form of political appeasement of the people of Nimba – the president’s hasty nomination of Justice Gbeisay has deep shroud in his protest of the Supreme Court Bench’s opinion in the House leadership impasse in which the Executive Branch of Government sided with the Majority Bloc – the group of lawmakers that sought the removal of then Speaker Koffa.
His decision, according to critiques, though legally permissible, was a tactically implicit move intended to embolden the Executive Branch’s action of backing the majority bloc. “He was aware of what he was doing – why he chose to dissent. Maybe, he got hint of the consequences he could face if agreed with the entire Bench. By that he set himself apart from any responsibility,” stated Perry Toe, a resident of Caldwell, who claimed he is an ardent reader and follower of both legal and political issues.
Toe said it was not an ordinary decision for Justice Gbeisay to make, being aware of the consequences, adding “he played smart not to miss the opportunity to become the next Chief Justice of Liberia.”
Mr. Toe argued that nominating him as Chief Justice was long considered, saying “this is why it took the President no time – even when the current Chief Justice is still in office – to nominate him.”
Also, Hezekiah Martin of the same community partially agreed with Toe’s assessment that Justice Gbeisay’s hasty nomination is as a result of his dissent, which is in smart agreement with Executive Branch’s decision to back the group of lawmakers found liable for breaching the law of the land.
“This should not be too much of a surprise to Liberians; it has since been a done deal waiting for time, and this is the name,” Martin asserted, adding “Gbeisay had been a long-time considered candidate for the position – though he is qualified – for his handling and conduct in the Bill of Information opinion.”
Slew of criticisms of the appointment
However, the Liberian leader has been criticized by Political commentator Keff Hassan for nominating Associate Justice Gbeisay to the position of Chief Justice , labeling it a “pay-to-play” nomination.
On June 30, President Boakai nominated Justice Gbeisay to replace retired Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene Gyapay Yuoh, describing him as a “distinguished jurist” with “exemplary integrity” and “profound legal acumen.”
Also, Solidarity and Trust for a New Day (STAND) has rejected President Boakai’s nominaton of Justice Gbeisay as Chief Justice of Liberia, calling the nomination a direct threat to the independence of the judiciary.
STAND Chairman Mulbah K. Morlu described the appointment as “a serious blow to judicial independence” and accused the Boakaiadministration of attempting to consolidate control over the Supreme Court.
“Justice Gbeisay’s elevation signals a troubling attempt by the Executive to tighten its grip on the nation’s highest court,” Morlusaid. “It raises the specter of a politically compromised judiciary.”
Morlu pointed to what he called Gbeisay’s “pattern of inconsistency” in recent rulings, specifically his contradictory positions in the Fonati Koffa legislative dispute.
In February, Gbeisay supported the Supreme Court’s boycott of President Boakai’s State of the Nation Address but later issued a dissenting opinion during the related Bill of Information hearing. “This flip-flop raises serious questions about his independence and capacity to lead with integrity,” Morlu said.
He warned that Gbeisay’s appointment could reverse progress made under out-going Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene Yuoh and revive public fears of a politically subservient judiciary. “We remember the days when executive interference in the courts helped destabilize this country,” he said.
Morlu also cited concerns from international stakeholders. “The U.S. State Department and other partners have repeatedly raised alarms about judicial transparency,” he noted. “Appointing a figure perceived as pliable only deepens those concerns.”
Drawing parallels to the era of former Chief Justice Emmanuel Gbalazeh, Morlu warned, “Unless Liberiforans raise their voices, Gbeisay may well become the Gbalazeh of our time.”
He called on citizens across the country to participate in the July 17 protest to defend judicial independence and reject what he called a return to “a rubber-stamp Supreme Court.”
“Liberia is at a crossroads,” Morlu said. “We must choose between defending constitutionalism or watching our democracy decline. July is here. So is our resolve: Enough is Enough.”
Matter of Precedence
Former President George Weah did not rush with the appointment of new chief justice following the retirement of then Chief Justice Cllr. Francis Korkpor. Instead, he waited for the formal retirement ritual, before nominating outgoing Chief Justice Yuoh as his replacement. It is believed that decision not to name anyone while the chief justice had not formally retired was to show respect and not to create any form of political spectacles.
