The majority bloc has filed a petition to the High Court for a re-argument of the Court’s judgment that recognized Fonati Koffa as the Speaker of the House, challenging their removal of Koffa and the passage of the 2025 fiscal budget as unconstitutional.
Members of the bloc have raised concerns about the Justices receiving benefits from the actions of the group and threatening to hold liable the justices and appropriate sanctions to be imposed on each of them, possible impeachment, as they too are beneficiaries of actions of the illegal group.
The petition argues that the Justices should disgorge any compensation received and face consequences for their involvement in the unconstitutional assembly. The petition emphasizes the need for a correction of the Court’s rulings to prevent potential unrest and uphold constitutional principles.
In the petition for re-argument, the petitioners argue that the justices should not only disgorge whatever compensations or benefits, which they have received, they ought to and should be held liable and appropriate sanctions imposed for such serious misconduct knowingly requesting an unconstitutional assembly of the majority bloc to appropriate funds for their salaries and benefits.
The petition added, “And, knowingly consuming such salaries and benefits as unconstitutionally and illegally authorized by the aforesaid assembly of the petitioners.”
“A petition for re-argument is the proper judicial process to facilitate the possibility of Your Honors’ correction of these egregiously erroneous rulings, which could soon possibly destroy the full faith and credit of the Republic of Liberia and foster social and political unrest,” they claim in the petition.
The Justices had maintained their stance that Koffa remains the legitimate Speaker and underlined the consequences of the majority bloc’s actions as unconstitutional and void.
In the April 23, 2025, Opinion and Ruling in Koffa’s Bill of Information, the justices wrote, “Hon. Koffa continues to be the Speaker of the House of Representatives and that all sittings and meetings over which he did not preside are unconstitutional and without the pale of the law is valid and legitimate.”
Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene Yuoh who delivered the opinion, said, its “opinion and judgment of December 6, 2024, is that any sitting or actions by the Majority Bloc, then respondents to the exclusion of Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, the duly elected presiding officer of the House of Representatives, while he is still present, and available to preside is unconstitutional and without the pare of the law, making specific reference to the passage into law the budget for the Fiscal year 2025.
The petitioners accuse the Justices of overstepping their authority, leading to a call for a re-argument to rectify perceived errors. The petition raises concerns about the separation of powers and the undermining of judicial independence, highlighting potential implications for the governance of Liberia.
The re-argument request filed by Cllr. Varney Sherman of the Sherman and Sherman Law Firm, the petitioners argue that the High Court ignored these cardinal principles of constitutional governance, and instead attempted to usurp and did usurp powers and authorities exclusively granted to the Legislature by the Constitution.
They also accused the justices of themselves being guilty of malfeasance for receiving and disbursing Liberian Government funds, which they knew or should have known have been authorized by the informants through an unconstitutional and illegal process.
In their opinion, the justices concluded that the Majority Bloc is an unconstitutional assembly of members of the House of Representatives and that all actions taken by them without Koffa presiding as Speaker of the House of Representatives is unconstitutional and without the pale of law.
“Then the entire budgetary process is also unconstitutional, null and void and that payments and settlements of obligations owed to all employees of the Liberian Government and to all persons who have provided services and sold properties to the Liberian Government are also unconstitutional, illegal, null and void, and these payments and settlements should promptly be reimbursed to the Liberian Government,” the re-argument request noted.
According to the petition, the judicial overreaching and blatant unconstitutional inference in the internal affairs and administration of the affairs of the House of Representatives, contrary to the SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE, could probably, within a few days plunge the Republic of Liberia and the governance of the Republic of Liberia into chaos.
They further argued that a fundamental principle of jurisprudence is that the court of law should only enter a judgment, which is capable of being enforced.
“That is a judgment, which is incapable of being enforced is tantamount to being a void judgment,” the petitioners emphasized.
They claim that the justices have conceded that there is no mechanism to compel them to sit under the gavel of Hon. Koffa, as Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Additionally, the petitioner’s reference previous cases where re-argument was granted to correct errors, suggesting inaccuracies in the Court’s judgment.
Given instance of cases where the Supreme Court had recalled their opinion judgement through a petition for re-argument, the petitioners named Harris et al. v. layweah et al., 39 LLR 571, In this case, they argued that, the Supreme Court held it cannot interpret or clarify its mandate by a bill of information; the proper procedure is to move the Supreme Court for re-argument.
In another case, Cavalla Rubber Corporation v. The Liberian Trading and Development Bank, 38 LLR 153, they said, the Supreme Court held that re-argument will be granted to correct errors where the case is one in which the principle involved is important and serious doubt exists as to the correctness of the decision.
“This is another way of alleging inaccuracies of the Justice who prepared the opinion of the Supreme Court,” the petitioners emphasized.
According to the petition, some of the cases relied upon in the “opinion in the Information proceeding as authority to allegedly remove uncertainty from the” December 6, 2024 Opinion in the Constitutionality Case specifically provide that, adding “the office of a Bill of Information is as provided by Part IX of the Supreme Court’s Rules, not to remove uncertainties in a previous opinion of the Supreme Court.”
Harris et al. v. layweah et al., 39 LLR 571, “the Supreme Court held it cannot interpret or clarify its mandate by a bill of information; the proper procedure is to move the Supreme Court for re-argument.”
In another case, Cavalla Rubber Corporation v. The Liberian Trading and Development Bank, 38 LLR 153, the Supreme Court held that re-argument will be granted to correct errors where the case is one in which the principle involved is important and serious doubt exists as to the correctness of the decision; it is another way of alleging inaccuracies of the Justice who prepared the opinion of the Supreme Court.
“Very important is that some of the cases relied upon in Your Honors’ Opinion in the Information proceeding as authority to allegedly remove uncertainty from Your Honors’ December 6, 2024 Opinion in the Constitutionality Case specifically provide that the office of a Bill of Information is as provided by Part IX of the Supreme Court’s Rules, not to remove uncertainties in a previous opinion of the Supreme Court.”
