By: Austin S Fallah-A True Son of the Planet Earth:
In examining the governance structure of Liberia, it is essential to explore the principles of separation of powers among the legislature, judiciary, and executive branches.
This principle is fundamental to a well-functioning democracy, intended to provide checks and balances that prevent the abuse of power by any one branch.
The legislature, primarily the House of Representatives, creates laws that reflect the people’s will.
Meanwhile, the judiciary interprets these laws and ensures they align with the nation’s constitution.
The executive implements these laws and manages the day-to-day affairs of the state.
However, the question arises.
Does the judiciary hold the authority to intervene in internal matters of the legislature, mainly when such issues carry the potential for widespread consequences impacting the nation and the constitution?
In light of recent events such as the removal of Speaker Jonathan Koffa by majority House members, we are compelled to scrutinize the implications of this action for the rule of law and respect for due process in Liberia.
Recently, Liberia has witnessed significant challenges that have tested the boundaries of the rule of law within its governmental institutions, such as the unconstitutional removal of Associate Justice Cllr. Kabineh M. Ja’neh from the Supreme Court serves as a stark reminder of the fragility of judicial independence, signaling a dangerous precedent regarding the legislature’s power over the judiciary.
Equally troubling were the previous removals of Speakers Edwin Snow and Alex Tyler, who were ousted in what many observers labeled politically motivated actions that flouted constitutional norms.
Such precedents raise concerns about the legislative branch’s integrity and capacity to act according to the law rather than partisan interests or tribal affiliations.
When internal dynamics within the legislature begin to undermine the fundamental principles of governance, this could signify a deterioration of respect for the law that threatens Liberia’s semblance of a democratic framework.
Comparatively, looking at other nations facing similar challenges highlights the potential repercussions of neglecting the rule of law.
In countries like Venezuela and Zimbabwe, political actors have engaged in systematic efforts to undermine judicial independence and legislative integrity, leading to severe institutional crises.
The judiciary’s role in these contexts has often been diminished as it has succumbed to political pressures, resulting in widespread instability and public discontent.
Drawing from these global examples serves as a cautionary tale for Liberia, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the separation of powers and respecting the law.
Upholding the rule of law requires diligent efforts from all branches of government to resist the temptations of power and engage in responsible governance, prioritizing the nation’s well-being over partisan ambitions.
As Liberia navigates its current political climate, it becomes increasingly crucial for all parties to prioritize legal adherence and constitutional principles, ensuring that the rule of law prevails in safeguarding the nation’s future.
Since the Liberian Laws, including the Constitution, are tailored after the US Laws and Constitution, please read below for some information.
“The Supreme Court should only intervene in internal legislative disputes in very limited circumstances, primarily when a dispute involves a potential violation of the Constitution or fundamental rights, as the principle of separation of powers generally dictates that the judiciary should not interfere with the internal workings of the legislative branch unless there is a clear legal issue at stake, allowing the legislature to self-regulate within its own procedures.
Key points to consider:
Constitutional Mandate:
The Supreme Court’s primary role is to interpret the Constitution and ensure laws comply with it; therefore, intervention in legislative disputes is only justified when a constitutional right or principle is demonstrably being violated.
Separation of Powers:
The system of checks and balances intends for each branch of government to have distinct powers, and excessive judicial intervention in legislative matters can disrupt this balance.
Political Questions Doctrine:
The Supreme Court often avoids intervening in matters considered “political questions,” which are disputes primarily within the political realm and not easily resolved through legal interpretation.
When might the Supreme Court intervene in legislative disputes?
Exclusion of Members:
If a legislative body attempts to exclude a duly elected member based on discriminatory or unconstitutional grounds, the Supreme Court may intervene to protect the right to representation.
Gerrymandering:
If a legislative district is drawn in a way that systematically disenfranchises voters based on race or political affiliation, the court may intervene to ensure fair representation.
Congressional Investigations:
In rare cases, if a Congressional investigation is deemed to be exceeding its bounds and infringing on individual rights, the Supreme Court might step in to review the process.
Arguments against frequent judicial intervention in legislative disputes:
Undermining Legislative Authority:
Frequent judicial intervention can diminish the legislature’s ability to self-regulate and make decisions within its own sphere of power.
Political Influence:
The Supreme Court, by intervening in legislative matters, can become entangled in partisan politics, potentially undermining its legitimacy and neutrality.
The Court and Constitutional Interpretation – Supreme Court
The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered …Supreme Court.”
