-On the House of Representatives Impasse
By: G Bennie Bravo Johnson, I.
In a bold and unprecedented move, the Liberian National Bar Association (LNBA) has issued a comprehensive critique of the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Amended Bill of Information filed by House Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, branding aspects of the decision as judicial overreach and a violation of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.
The LNBA through its National President, Cllr. Bornor M. Varmah, on April 28, 2025, expresses “respectful disagreement” with the Supreme Court’s April 23 opinion, which reaffirmed Speaker Koffa’s legitimacy and invalidated any legislative sittings held in his absence.
The controversy centers around a months-long political standoff in the House of Representatives, where a self-proclaimed “Majority Bloc” had moved to sideline Speaker Koffa amid allegations of internal leadership disputes. The matter found its way to the Supreme Court via a Bill of Information—a procedural tool that, according to the LNBA, has now been stretched beyond its constitutional intent.
“While the LNBA notes the Court’s opinion as a testament to its constitutional role, we are constrained to express our disagreement with the Court’s interpretation and its practical implications on the doctrine of separation of powers.” Cllr. Varmah stated,
Central to the LNBA’s position is the contention that the Supreme Court’s ruling, issued in response to Speaker Koffa’s Bill of Information, amounted to a substantive new judgment, rather than a clarification of a prior decision.
The Bar Association referenced Rule IV, Part 12 of the Revised Rules of the Supreme Court, which outlines the legitimate scope of a Bill of Information: to address attempts by judicial officers or any other parties to improperly execute or interfere with the Court’s mandate.
“A Bill of Information is not, and should not become, a substitute mechanism for settling inherently political questions—particularly those relating to the internal organization, leadership, or operational independence of the Legislature.” the LNBA emphasized
The Bar believes the Court overstepped its bounds by effectively issuing a new opinion in a constitutional matter it had already ruled on in December 2024, in which the Court had directed lawmakers to act in accordance with Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution without detailing specific enforcement mechanisms.
Perhaps the most serious allegation leveled against the Court is that its latest ruling constitutes a violation of the Political Question Doctrine, a foundational element of constitutional law that reserves certain disputes—especially those involving internal legislative affairs—for resolution within the political branches of government.
The LNBA’s statement warns that continued judicial intervention in legislative disputes could dangerously erode the separation of powers. It questions the Court’s decision to rule that Speaker Koffa’s removal was unconstitutional without a two-thirds resolution by the House, as required by Article 49 of the Constitution.
“We shall not idly observe judicial overreach in matters reserved by the Constitution exclusively for the Legislature, This is simply a violation of the Political Question Doctrine said Cllr. Varmah.
The Association further asserted that if the Court considers the Majority Bloc’s actions illegal, then the legality of the 2025 National Budget—drafted and passed during that period—is also in question.
“Obviously, then, the 2025 National Budget is illegal, And all persons who participated in the process and/or have benefitted from the process are guilty of having participated in an illegal process and facilitated the consummation of its illegality.”
The LNBA did not mince words in warning about the broader implications of the ruling. By empowering the judiciary to intervene in matters of legislative leadership, the Bar contends that the Court has set a dangerous precedent that could destabilize governance in Liberia.
The Association further contended that the Court’s opinion is self-contradictory and could spark constitutional chaos by undermining the very legitimacy of legislative business conducted during the internal dispute.
“That is why it is important that the Supreme Court quickly reconsiders its Opinion and Judgment and expunge itself from this embarrassment,” the LNBA said in its most severe rebuke of the High Court in recent history.
The Bar also disagreed with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Articles 33 and 49, which pertain to quorum and leadership in the House of Representatives. The Court held that any session held without the Speaker if he is present and available, is unconstitutional.
The LNBA argues that this rigid interpretation ignores practical legislative realities and the potential for procedural abuse.
“Presence and availability in this instance,” the LNBA clarified, “does not merely denote being within the physical confines of the designated area but also properly seated amongst similar colleagues and ready to exercise one’s constitutional functions.”
This distinction, the Bar argues, is crucial in determining whether Speaker Koffa was in fact “present and available” during the contested sessions. If he was not engaged in legislative duties or chose not to preside, then the Majority Bloc’s actions might not have been unconstitutional.
“What if a quorum exists, he’s present (on the premises of the Capitol), but chooses to ignore?” the Bar posed rhetorically. “The LNBA thinks that ignoring quorum would undermine legislative business.”
However, the LNBA warned that failure to reverse or amend the ruling could have catastrophic implications for Liberia’s governance.
The LNBA claims that, under the Court’s own logic, any disbursement of public funds—salaries, vendor payments, or procurement contracts—based on the “illegal” 2025 Budget would themselves be illegal, potentially rendering government operations null and void.
“This will disrupt government operations and undermine the credibility of the State, Some might liken this to criminal subversion of the Government.”
The Bar warned that such a scenario could spark a constitutional crisis, especially if institutions begin to reject the authority of laws or budgets passed under disputed circumstances.
At the same time, the Association recommended and called for the formation of an Independent Mediation Committee, consisting of former Chief Justices, the Interreligious Council, and respected civil society actors, to resolve the impasse in the House.
The Bar asserted that the mediation body would serve to depoliticize the conflict and promote unity within the Legislature, with the ultimate goal of safeguarding Liberia’s democratic stability.
“The LNBA remains committed to fostering a culture of respect for the rule of law,” Cllr. Varmah declared, “while advocating for interpretations that promote institutional harmony and democratic progress.”
In closing, the Bar reaffirmed its commitment to upholding justice, protecting constitutional rights, and ensuring the continued stability of Liberia’s democratic institutions.
“As the legal community, we stand ready to provide guidance and support in navigating these complex constitutional issues. We urge all stakeholders to engage in constructive dialogue to address these concerns.”
However, Cllr.Arthur T. Johnson had this to say following the LNBA press conference: “Mr. President of the LNBA , your position statement about the Supreme court’s Ruling has effectively undermined the Supreme Court: First time for the Bar.” Johnson is a member of embattled Speaker Koffa’s legal team.
