–Unpacking the Ruling for Clearer Understanding Amid Different Interpretations
Our Staff Jerromie S. Walters and Kebeh Sammie Report:
Monrovia, Liberia – On December 6, 2024, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Liberia addressed the constitutionality of actions undertaken by certain members of the House of Representatives, as prayed for by House Speaker J. Fonati Koffa.
In a nation where the rule of law is purportedly paramount, the recent ruling of the Supreme Court of Liberia has only served to deepen the leadership crisis engulfing the House of Representatives. The court’s decision, shrouded in ambiguity, has become a tool for various factions to interpret in ways that suit their interests, further fueling political discord.
Following extensive consultations with independent legal experts, our investigations reveal that the High Court did indeed rule in favor of Cllr. Fonati Koffa. The court’s decision mandated a return to the Status Quo Ante, clearly stating that any actions taken outside of this framework are Ultra Vire—beyond the powers of the so-called majority bloc. Despite this seemingly clear directive, skepticism abounds regarding whether the majority bloc, bolstered by the apparent support of the Executive Mansion, will comply.
This skepticism is not unfounded. The current political milieu recalls a similar defiance of judicial authority by the Executive Mansion. President Joseph Nyuma Boakai previously faced severe criticism from civil society organizations and opposition parties for ignoring a Court ruling on tenure related to the Liberia Telecommunication Authority (LTA). The President’s decision to suspend and replace the LTA commissioners, despite the court’s directive, was seen as a direct affront to judicial authority and a troubling precedent for executive overreach.
Such actions cast a long shadow over President Boakai’s administration, which has vocally championed the rule of law. The recent developments in the House of Representatives suggest a troubling continuity of executive defiance, undermining public confidence in both the judiciary and the executive branches of government.
The implications of this ongoing saga are profound. The rule of law, a cornerstone of democratic governance, appears increasingly fragile in Liberia. If judicial rulings can be so easily ignored or manipulated, the very fabric of the nation’s democratic institutions is at risk. Civil society and opposition voices grow louder in their demand for adherence to judicial decisions, yet their calls seem to fall on deaf ears within the corridors of power.
The case emerged from concerns regarding the internal operations of the House, specifically questioning whether the actions of the self-styled “Majority Bloc” adhered to the provisions outlined in the 1986 Constitution of Liberia and the House’s rules.
Judicial Authority
In its judgment, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its role as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional matters, as established in Article 66 of the Constitution. The court emphasized its jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising from internal disagreements among legislative members and underscored the essence of maintaining constitutional integrity within the legislative process.
The court further clarified that constitutional interpretation must take into account the entire document, asserting that every provision holds equal weight. It stressed the necessity of harmonizing discrepancies between different constitutional articles to ensure a coherent legal framework.
Examining Article 33
A major aspect of the ruling was the court’s interpretation of Article 33, which pertains to the composition of the House of Representatives. The court stated that regardless of whether a simple majority or a minority is present, the Speaker, as defined in Article 49, remains the presiding officer. The ruling highlighted the absence of constitutional mechanisms to compel attendance from absent members and pointed to a legislative gap in establishing rules for such scenarios.
Determining Legal Authority
In addition to the above, the Supreme Court concluded that any actions or proceedings 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.”
Actions (Controversial Removal of Leadership)
On November 21, 2024, the “Majority Bloc” of the House of Representatives voted to remove Cllr. J. Fonati Koffa from his position as Speaker of the 55th Legislature, claiming support from 50 representatives. Shortly thereafter, they elected Representative Richard Nagbe Koon of Montserrado County District #11 as the new Speaker and inducted him immediately.
However, several lawmakers who initially supported the resolution later withdrew their signatures. Among those retracting their support were Representatives Thomas Goshua, Matthew Joe, Priscilla Cooper, Rugie Barry, Alex Sonnyboy Noah, and Bintu Massally. They condemned the Majority Bloc’s actions as illegal. During a press conference on the same day, the lawmakers threatened legal action against the Majority Bloc, revealing they had consulted with legal counsel regarding the matter.
Leadership Restructuring
On November 19, 2024, the “Majority Bloc” initiated a restructuring of the House leadership and made key replacements on essential committees. Representative Dixon Seboe was removed as Chairman of the House Committee on Ways, Means, Finance, and Budget, with Representative P. Mike Jury appointed as the acting chairman. Additionally, Bong County District #3 Representative Marvin Cole was ousted from his role as Chairman of the Rules, Order, and Administration Committee and replaced by Representative James Kolleh.
Suspensions Amid Turmoil
On the same day, the self-styled “Majority Bloc” suspended several lawmakers, including Montserrado County District #13 Representative Edward P. Flomo and District #14 Representative Abu Kamara, for one month due to alleged misconduct. The suspension means the affected lawmakers will forfeit their legally mandated benefits, including salary, for the duration of the 30 days. The decision was reached unanimously, although three lawmakers abstained from voting.
Considering the above, the Supreme Court, in its ruling on Friday, December 6, 2024, directed members of the House to conduct themselves under the established constitutional framework and emphasized the need for adherence to legal protocols amid ongoing political turmoil.
As the House of Representatives leadership crisis unfolds, the true test will be whether the judiciary can assert its authority and whether the executive will respect it. The consequences of continued defiance are dire, threatening to erode the rule of law and destabilize the very governance structures that uphold Liberia’s democracy.
In this climate of uncertainty, the eyes of the nation—and indeed the world—are on Liberia. The Supreme Court’s ruling and the subsequent actions of the majority bloc and the Executive Mansion will not only shape the immediate political landscape but also signal the future trajectory of Liberian democracy.
