-In House of Representatives Impasse
In a detailed analysis shared on his official Facebook page, Senator Albert Chea highlighted critical insights from the Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding the ongoing impasse in the House of Representatives (HOR).
The Speaker Remains the Presiding Officer
Senator Chea emphasized the Court’s interpretation of Article 33 of the 1986 Constitution, which asserts that the Speaker is the designated Presiding Officer of the House, regardless of whether a simple majority or a lesser number of members is present. “The Supreme Court has made it clear that the Speaker must preside over all plenary sessions,” Chea stated.
Absence of Mechanisms to Compel Attendance
The Court also addressed the issue of absent members, acknowledging its limitations in compelling attendance. “The Constitution does not provide a mechanism for ensuring that absent members attend plenary sessions,” Chea noted. He pointed out that until the Constitution is amended or new legislation is enacted, the responsibility lies with HOR members to voluntarily fulfill their obligations by attending sessions. “This remains a political question that needs to be resolved through legislative action,” he added.
Legality of Actions Taken by the “Majority Bloc”
Senator Chea further explained that the Supreme Court’s ruling deemed any actions taken by the “majority bloc” that do not conform to Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution as “ultra vires” or beyond their constitutional authority. This includes actions such as holding sessions, suspending members, restructuring committees, and electing a Speaker without the proper presiding authority.
“The Court has unequivocally stated that these actions lack legitimacy and are illegal,” Chea asserted. “The Speaker’s authority is paramount, and any proceedings conducted without their oversight are not constitutionally valid.” As the impasse continues, he urged all members to respect the ruling and work collaboratively to restore functionality to the legislative body. “It is essential for the House to operate within the framework of the Constitution to serve the interests of the people effectively,” he concluded.
The ruling
The Supreme Court over the weekend ruled in the House of Representatives impasse and firstly asserted its constitutional authority over the matter, emphasizing its role in interpreting and upholding the Constitution. The case arose from concerns regarding the internal operations of the House of Representatives, specifically questioning whether actions taken by its members adhered to the provisions outlined in the 1986 Constitution of Liberia.
Particularly significant was the court’s interpretation of Article 33, which pertains to the composition of the House of Representatives. The ruling stated that whether a simple majority or a minority is present, the Speaker, as defined in Article 49, remains the presiding officer. The court noted the absence of constitutional mechanisms to compel attendance from absent members, highlighting a legislative gap in establishing rules for such scenarios.
Acting beyond their legal authority
In light of the findings, the Supreme Court concluded that any actions or sittings by members of the House of Representatives that do not align with the intent of Articles 33 and 49 are deemed ultra vires or beyond their legal authority.
Article 33 of the 1986 constitution of the Republic of Liberia states that “A simple majority of each House shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, but a lower number may adjourn from day to day and compel the attendance of absent members. Whenever the House of Representatives and the Senate shall meet in joint session, the presiding officer of the House of Representatives shall preside.”
Consequently, Article 49 provides: “The House of Representatives shall elect once every six years a Speaker who shall be the presiding officer of that body, a Deputy Speaker, and such other officers as shall ensure the proper functioning of the House. The Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, and other officers so elected may be removed from office for cause by resolution of a two-thirds majority of the members of the House.” Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has directed members of the House to conduct themselves by the established constitutional framework.
The onset
Some 47 members of the House of Representatives of the 55th Legislature on Thursday, October 17, 2024, read a resolution to remove Speaker J. Fonati Koffa from his position at the grounds of the Legislature. In the resolution, the legislators cited multiple allegations of misconduct, conflicts of interest, and administrative incompetence. The “Majority Bloc” of the House of Representatives, on Thursday, November 21, 2024, officially voted to remove Cllr. J. Fonati Koffa from his position as Speaker of the 55th Legislature of the Republic of Liberia. The resolution was supported by 50 representatives, according to the Bloc.
