-As anti-Koffa appears before Justice In Chamber today
By Jerromie S. Walters
On today, Monday, November 4, 2024, the aggrieved lawmakers of the House of Representatives will participate in a conference called by Associate Justice Yamie Quigui Gbeisay.
The House of Representatives has been destabilized over the last two weeks due to ongoing efforts to remove House Speaker Cllr. J. Fonati Koffa. On October 25, 2024, the Supreme Court of Liberia mandated that the self-styled “Majority Bloc” within the House of Representatives stay all further proceedings and actions related to ongoing actions to remove House Speaker J. Fonati Koffa until a scheduled conference takes place.
The directive came as part of a petition filed by the Speaker of the House, Honorable J. Fonati Koffa, who is seeking a writ of prohibition against Representatives Samuel G. Kogar of NimbaCounty District #5, Richard Nagbe Koon of MontserradoCounty District #11, and other members of the Bloc. The petition asserts that these representatives have acted outside the authority granted to them under the House’s Standing Rules.
Associate Justice Yamie Quigui Gbeisay, presiding over the case, called for the conference to address the legal implications of the aggrieved lawmakers’ actions and to determine the appropriate course of action moving forward. In his stay order, Justice Gbeisay emphasized the importance of maintaining order and adherence to legislative procedures during this contentious period.
Conditional agreement
Last Tuesday, the self-styled “Majority Bloc” of the House of Representatives agreed to participate in the conference called by Associate Justice Yamie Quigui Gbeisay but affirmed their commitment to continue regular legislative engagements “sessions” on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
During their Tuesday engagement, members of the Bloc resolved to comply with the court’s invitation and instructed the acting Chief Clerk to liaise with the Committee on Judiciary to formalize their attendance. Despite this compliance, the bloc appears inflexible in their assertion that their legislative sessions are legitimate and necessary for conducting the people’s business.
Debate Over Judicial Oversight
During the Tuesday engagement “session,” several legislators expressed concerns regarding Justice Gbeisay’s decision and suggested that it may have stemmed from an oversight rather than a deliberate attempt to disrupt legislative proceedings. Bong County District #7 Representative Foday Fahnbulleharticulated that the justice’s ruling could inadvertently undermine the constitutional framework by effectively shutting down the legislature.
He argued that the Senate’s ongoing operations validate the Majority Bloc’s engagement. “The senate has not to adjoin and an attempt to shut plenary down, meaning you need to put a stay order on the Senate, and you are shutting the legislature down. Legally, it undermines the constitution, and I believe the Justice in Chamber knows the law [and] he’s aware of the circumstances surrounding this country in as much as he’s a leader in this country. To overlook this and try to turn a blind eye, I believe it was an oversight on the part of the justice. It can not be intentional.”
Rep. Fahnbulleh: “You can not legally put a stop to our functions, especially when lawmakers are to go to session. Laws support that. The first thing is that we have formed a quorum, and we are in session. We are doing the Liberian people’s business. In as much as we are doing the Liberian people’s business, it is because the Senate is still open. The Senate is still open because there’s a majority in the lower house doing the Liberian people’s business.”
Bong County District #2 Representative James Kolleh further elucidated the constitutional implications of the Supreme Court’s intervention and argued that the court’s writ did not prohibit the House from conducting sessions but specifically targeted the removal proceedings against Speaker Koffa. Citing Article 40 of the Constitution, Kolleh emphasized the requirement for legislative bodies to notify each other before adjourning for more than five days and warned that an extended hiatus could lead to a constitutional crisis.
Article 40 of the 1986 constitution states: “Neither House shall adjourn for more than five days without the consent of the other and both Houses shall always sit in the same city.” With this, Kolleh asserted: “There are several constitutional backing for us to have a session. The writ is not prohibiting us from having a session. The writ is prohibiting us from our removal proceeding. It is not for us to have a session. Why I think this Is because of Article 40. Article 40 says no House shall adjoin for more than five days without notifying the other, so if the justice in the chamber wants us not to have a session for a period of nine to ten days, it means that we will run into a constitutional crisis.”
Separation of Powers
Kolleh argued that matters of a political nature should remain within the purview of elected officials rather than the judiciary, asserting that the Supreme Court has previously ruled that political questions are non-justiciable. His words: “I also want to bring it to the attention of this plenary that article 3 is clear on the issue of separation of power. This Honorable Supreme Court has ruled on many instances and said to us that when the question presented is purely political, it is non-justiciable. It means that justice can not pass in said matter. It should be left with the political arm of government.”
Article 3 states, “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 person holding office in one of these branches shall hold office in or exercise any of the powers assigned to either of the other two branches except as otherwise provided in this Constitution; and no person holding office in one of the said branches shall serve on any autonomous public agency.”
