Last week in Liberia, a rare but consequential event unfolded in the country’s legal and constitutional history. The Supreme Court issued a ruling that effectively reinstated the Speaker of the House of Representatives amid a legislative dispute.
By George Kronnisanyon Werner, contributing writer
Almost immediately, the President of the Liberian National Bar Association (LNBA), Cllr. Bornor Varmah, issued a public statement criticizing the Court’s decision, asserting that it overstepped its constitutional role.
However, his own deputy, Vice President Juah Lawson, publicly disavowed the statement, insisting it did not represent the collective view of the Bar. The legal community is now sharply divided, and questions about the neutrality, authority, and coherence of the Bar are at the center of national conversation.
This unfolding episode invites us to examine a broader phenomenon: What happens when a national Bar Association publicly disagrees with its Supreme Court? And is there precedent for such high-stakes institutional dissent? Bar Associations as Guardians of the Rule of Law Bar Associations do more than license attorneys and uphold professional standards. In democratic societies, they serve as custodians of the rule of law.
They speak when legal processes are violated, when the independence of institutions is threatened, or when court decisions jeopardize constitutional principles. In this role, Bar Associations often walk a fine line: defending the authority of the judiciary while also holding it accountable.
This balancing act becomes even more complex when the Bar finds itself at odds with the highest court in the land.
Global Precedents: From India to the U.S. Liberia is not alone. Other countries, including those with long-established legal systems, have seen similar moments. In India, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) openly opposed the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision to strike down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
In Malaysia, in 2015, the Bar Council criticized the Federal Court’s verdict that upheld the conviction of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim…
In the United States, the American Bar Association (ABA) reacted forcefully to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization… And in Pakistan, during the 2007 constitutional crisis, the national bar united against the Supreme Court’s validation of emergency rule imposed by then-President Pervez Musharraf.
Dissent Within the Dissent: Liberia’s Internal Rift
What makes Liberia’s current case especially instructive is not just the Bar’s disagreement with the Court, but its internal breakdown of consensus…
The Bar’s Role: Watchdog, Not Rival
There is a fine but vital distinction between holding the judiciary accountable and undermining its legitimacy…
Conclusion: Strength in Process
The Supreme Court is not infallible. Bar Associations are within their rights-and in many ways obligated-to critique decisions that compromise justice or democracy… Because when the Bar speaks, especially against the Bench, it must do so with more than just a voice. It must speak with a conscience, a process, and a united front.
About the Author:
George Kronnisanyon Werner is a Liberian public servant and former Minister of Education (2015-2018). He is a policy advisor and governance reform advocate with a background in health, education, and public sector transformation across Africa.
