-Associate Justice Gbeisey Descends On Supreme Court Ruling
By: G Bennie Bravo Johnson, I.Following the Supreme Court of Liberia Wednesday, April 23, 2025, ruling on the House of Representatives impasse, Associate Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisey says the court violates the constitution and separation of power.
Justice Gbeisey stated that the Court cannot intervene in the matters of the Legislature by setting the procedures for the house of representatives, asserting that by doing so, would amount to the violation of the Constitution and the principle of separation of Powers.
It may be recalled, the Court in its December 6, 2024, ruling on the legislative impasse, the Court emphasized due to the “Separation of Power” it has “Limited Judicial Intervention” in Legislative Matters and that it could not interfere in the internal affairs of the Legislature unless there was a clear constitutional violation.
Though the Court at the time refrained from directly ruling on the validity of the Majority Bloc’s actions, it used Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution to stress that any legislative action taken outside the constitutional framework would be ultra vires (beyond legal authority).
The Court on Wednesday, April 23, reaffirmed it’s ruling but clarified that any sitting of the House of Representatives without Speaker Cllr Fonati Koffa is Illegal – stating that “Koffa is the duly elected Speaker” – A ruling the Associate Justice believed that violated the principle of separation of power in the 1986 constitution.
The Justice in his descending opinion
asserted that the controversy in the legislature is more of a political matter, as it relates to compelling the majority of the House of Representatives to sit under the embattled Speaker.
Asserting that neither the Constitution nor the Rules of the House of Representatives can compel majority members of the house to sit under the speaker.
Embattled House Speaker Cllr. J. Fonati Koffa filed a four-count Bill of Information before the Supreme Court of Liberia, accusing the Majority Bloc of violating the Court’s December 6, 2024, ruling. The petition claims that the Majority Bloc, led by Deputy Speaker Thomas Fallah and Rep. Richard Koon, defied the ruling by continuing legislative activities and making decisions despite the Court’s declaration that their previous actions, including Koffa’s removal, were unconstitutional. Koffa’s legal team argues that all actions taken since then should be declared null and void and that the Bloc’s behavior amounts to contempt of court.
Additionally, the Bill challenges a legal opinion issued by Justice Minister Cllr. Oswald Tweh, which allegedly misinterpreted the Court’s ruling and emboldened the Majority Bloc’s continued defiance. Koffa argues that this misstep by the Justice Minister has further undermined the authority of the Supreme Court and the country’s constitutional order. The petition calls for corrective measures and sanctions to restore judicial integrity and uphold the rule of law.
However, Justice Gbeisey descended that the contentions in the Bill of Information cannot be addressed by the office of bill of information.
Asserting that the Bill asks political questions which the court cannot answer.
“My position is that the contentions of these proceedings cannot be addressed by the office of the bill of information. And this case presents a clear Political question which this court must not be answered by this court.”
He asserted that under the doctrine of the separation of power, in the 1986 Constitution which provides that: “Liberia is a unitary sovereign state divided into counties for administrative purposes. The form of government is Republican with three separate coordinate branches: the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary. Consistent with the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances, no one branch shall exercise any of the powers assigned to either of the other two branches except as otherwise provided in this Constitution.”. the court cannot decide sully for the legislature and the Executive Bench of Government.
The Justice added that the controversy in the legislature is more of a political matter, as it relates to compelling the majority of the House of Representatives to sit under the embattled Speaker.
Asserting that neither the Constitution nor the Rules of the House of Representatives can compel majority members of the house to sit under the speaker.
“Neither the Constitution of 1986 nor the House Rule sets the procedures for members who fail to attend session to attend session.
This Court cannot intervene by setting the procedures for the house of representatives which would amount to the violation of the Constitution and the separation of Powers.” Justice Gbeisey
Justice Gbeisey continued that “The role of the court is to pronounce right and wrong through a judicial function of integrity.
He asserted that the intention of the Court in the first ruling was cleared by declaring that any sitting of the Legislature not consistent with the Article 33 and 49 of the constitution is “Ultra Vares”
Stating that the responsibility to adhere to the two articles rests with the Legislature, but not for the court to MENDATE them, stating that they are lawmakers who are to respect the law.
The Justice in his opinion averred that the House of Representatives has placed itself into internal struggle motivated by politics which the court should be conscious of not to place itself in the center.
“The House of Representatives has placed itself into internal struggle motivated by politics which this court should be conscious of not to place itself in the center.” further stating that the duty of the Court is to state the law, not to put itself into politics.
In furtherance, the Associate Justice asserted that the Bill of Information filed by Embattled Speaker Koffa did not meet the cateria of Rule 4.2 of the Supreme Court of Liberia. Stating that according to the rule, a bill of information can only ask for clarification of the Court ruling but cannot ask the court to mendate the implementation of an opinion.
Stating that the ruling of the Supreme Court did not constitute a mendate but rather a verdict – and that there was no mendate from the Supreme Court to the Legislature. Asserting that is a mendate is violated, a contempt can be issued.
Therefore, the ruling was not a mendate as described by the Bill of Information – and the Supreme Court cannot issue a contempt charge on the legislature and the executive, as doing so would lead to government collapse. Because there is nothing in the Court ruling that constitutes a mendate.
“There is nothing in the court ruling like mendate.
The Court gives mendate to the lower court to perform a particular task.
But a ruling is not a mandate, because it directs us to inform the parties of its judgement.”
In his contentions, he averred that the action of the Supreme Court to mendate the Legislature is reproserious and a slap in the face of justice.
“The opinion of Judgement by my majority colleagues is a slap in the face of justice.”
Asserting that the Bill of Information is in total defiance of the rules of the Supreme Court.
And the action by my esteem colleagues has opened the Pandora box and created many questions then answered.”
The Justice continued by adding that a Bill of Information came to this court through an improper manner or in a Liberian balance “Through the Back Door” and in violation of rule 5.12 of the supreme Court rule.” adding that one cannot pursue their right using the wrong path.
Justice Gbeisey concludes by further asserting that in line with the principle of preservation of state, the act of the Executive and the Majority Bloc of the legislature to pass on the budget that which the Senate concord on, was a political decision, that the court must not declare as illegal, for if the Executive and the Majority Bloc have not done so would have led to the state been shot down.
