IPNEWS: Uneasiness is now mounting over whether or not the Supreme Court might hear and give a just opinion on recent ‘Bill of Information’ filed by lawyers representing the interest of House Speaker Cllr. Jonathan Fonati Koffa, and members of the House of Representatives known as ‘minority bloc’, after Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene G. Yuoh, was seen hanging out with Vice President Jeremiah Koung, Saturday, December 14, 2024, during a formal dedication ceremony of her daughter’s park located in the Marshall City, Lower Margibi County.
Vice President Koung formally dedicated the ‘Joyland Park during its grand opening.
Vice President Koung is currently at the center of accusation as being one of the masterminds behind the tumultuous removal of Speaker Fonati Koffa. Even though the Vice President has since denied the allegation but it hasn’t stopped supporters of the embattled Speaker from point accusing fingers at him and President Joseph Nyuma Boakai.
Bill of Information
On December 12, Speaker Koffa filed a Bill of Information before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of actions taken by members of the self-styled “Majority Bloc,” including the purported removal of Koffa as Speaker and the election of Representative Richard N. Koon as his replacement, especially after the Supreme Court had ruled on December 6, 2024.
The Bill of Information raises critical questions about adherence to the Liberian Constitution and compliance with the Supreme Court’s December 6, 2024, ruling. In that decision, the Court ruled that only the Speaker or, in their absence, the Deputy Speaker, as outlined in Article 49 of the Constitution, may preside over legislative sittings. It further declared any actions taken by the Majority Bloc as unconstitutional and ordered members of the House of Representatives to align their conduct with constitutional provisions. However, the document alleges that the Majority Bloc has deliberately violated the ruling, with the Executive Branch, represented by the Minister of Justice, contributing to the impasse through a “wrongful interpretation” of the judgment.
Reacting to the unfolding events, Speaker Koffa issued a defiant statement: “I have officially been informed that all state security will be withdrawn tomorrow. These actions from the Executive do NOT change the fact that I remain the Speaker of the House of Representatives. This only further strengthens my resolve to fight for upholding the Rule of Law and the Liberian Constitution.” Koffa’s statement underscores his firm stance amid mounting political tensions.
The legal document, filed under the case title In Re: The Constitutionality of Certain Actions Taken by Some Members of the House of Representatives of the 55th Legislature, lists grievances including the deliberate violation of the Supreme Court’s December 6 ruling by the Majority Bloc, their refusal to comply with the Court’s directives, and the Justice Minister’s alleged misinterpretation of the ruling, which contributed to the Majority Bloc’s actions.
The Bill of Information highlights that the unconstitutional actions of the Majority Bloc include the removal of Koffa as Speaker and the subsequent election of Representative Koon. It further reiterates the Court’s prior ruling that such actions are “ultra vires,” meaning unauthorized and illegal.
According to some political commentators, the ongoing political impasse highlights deep divisions within the House of Representatives and raises broader questions about Liberia’s commitment to constitutional governance. As the Supreme Court reviews the Bill of Information, Cllr. Gabriel Nah suggests that the outcome could have significant implications for legislative stability and the balance of power between the Legislature and the Executive Branch. Meanwhile, Speaker Koffa’s assertion of constitutional authority, along with the active support of former EPS officers, signals a tense and uncertain chapter in Liberia’s political landscape. The nation is watching closely as the judiciary steps in to address this high-stakes dispute.
Members of the Koffa bloc, on October 17, revealed leaks that Deputy Speaker Thomas Fallah and Vice President Koung had allegedly bribed lawmakers to remove Speaker Koffa.
The ground of the Capitol Building was tense when Lawmakers turned up to sign a resolution which enticed an initial 47 signatures out of the 73 representatives signing a resolution to remove the Speaker.
It became so tense that lawmakers can be could be clearly seen using uncivilized words on one and another. A Facebook blog, Shine Liberia, had posted on that Deputy Speaker Fallah and Vice President Koung had bribed lawmakers to remove Speaker Koffa.
The blog stated: “Deputy Thomas Fallah and VP Jeremiah Koung were the persons dishing out 25k each to lawmakers to remove Speaker Koffa.”
The post generated 79 reactions, 20 comments, and two shares. In the comments, Liberians had mixed reactions to Shine Liberia’s claim which was also posted by other blogs like Yekeh Kolubah. Given the level of public interest and the accusation of bribery, DUBAWA decided to provide an in-depth report on the matter. Below are comments from the public sharing different perspectives on the matter.
As if the bribery claims on Shine Liberia were not enough, a few hours after the high tension at the Legislature, Bana FM/TV (a media outlet) posted a video of Gbarpolu District#2 Representative, Luther Collins, who claimed that Collins was bribed by other Lawmakers to unseat Speaker Koffa. In his statement, Rep. Collins accused Rep. James Kolleh of Bong County of being the frontline for recruitment in the anti-Koffa camp.
According to Rep. Collins, lawmakers were bribed with $25k to unseat the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The Gbarpolu lawmaker, showcasing a bundle of cash in the video, said they had been given $15k as the first payment of the $25k and expected to receive the balance of $10k after their mission is completed.
Ex-President George Weah waded into the controversy by issuing a statement accusing the Unity Party government of being the brains behind the bribery. Mr Weah described the situation as an act that could undermine the country’s peace and democracy. He alleged that the funds being paid to unseat Speaker Koffa were taken from the national budget to influence the process.
“It has come to my attention that the Unity Party-led government under President Joseph Boakai is making a concerted and criminal effort to undermine our democratic and constitutional institutions by using ill-gotten funds from the National Coffers to influence the unjust removal of the Speaker.
“This blatant act of political chicanery threatens the integrity of our constitutional legislative process and sets a dangerous precedent for governance in our beloved nation. I want to make it unequivocally clear such actions will not be tolerated. The attempt to manipulate the legislative branch for partisan gain is a direct affront to the principles of democracy and the will of the people,” the release said.
The ex-president further cautioned members of his party to refrain from plotting against a party member. He expressed that their participation in such a plot would betray their constituents’ trust and carry dire future political consequences.
“To the members of the Coalition for Democratic Change (CDC) legislative caucus, I warn and urge you to stand firmly against this insidious plot. Do not allow yourselves to be swayed by pecuniary gains and the siren song of those who seek to destabilise our governance process for their own selfish interests. Participation in this scheme will not only betray the trust of your constituents but will also carry dire significant political consequences for your future within our party and in the eyes of the Liberian people,” he added.
Government response
Through the Ministry of Information, Culture Affairs and Tourism, the Government of Liberia also released a statement distancing itself from the plot against the removal of Speaker Koffa. The Government described the act as preposterous, disgraceful, and unfounded accusations by the leader of the Coalition for Democratic Change (CDC), Mr George Weah. Instead, the ministry pointed accusing fingers at Mr Weah for the bribery.
“The Unity Party-led Government, headed by President Joseph Nyuma Boakai, Sr, categorically rejects link to [a] plot on Capitol Hill to remove House Speaker, Honorable J. Fonati Koffa. We believe that the purported plot to remove Speaker Koffa from his leadership role looks more like an internal power struggle within the CDC orchestrated by Mr Weah. This is why Mr Weah has quickly deflected attention from himself to the Boakai-led Government.
“Mr Weah is noted for fighting proxy battles against prominent leaders within the CDC to cement himself as the party’s demigod rather than allow others to gain political prominence.
“It is our thinking that Mr Koffa’s confident leadership style scares Mr Weah and that the emergence of other principled leaders within the CDC that will take away complete allegiance from the former President always faces such challenge,” said Acting Information Minister Daniel Sando.
Doctrine of Justice Versus Fairness
In the context of conflict, the terms ‘justice’ and ‘fairness’ are often used interchangeably.
Taken in its broader sense, justice is action in accordance with the requirements of some law.[1] Some maintain that justice stems from God’s will or command, while others believe that justice is inherent in nature itself. Still others believe that justice consists of rules common to all humanity that emerge out of some sort of consensus. This sort of justice is often thought of as something higher than a society’s legal system. It is in those cases where an action seems to violate some universal rule of conduct that we are likely to call it “unjust.”
In its narrower sense, justice is fairness. It is action that pays due regard to the proper interests, property, and safety of one’s fellows.[2] While justice in the broader sense is often thought of as transcendental, justice as fairness is more context-bound. Parties concerned with fairness typically strive to work out something comfortable and adopt procedures that resemble rules of a game. They work to ensure that people receive their “fair share” of benefits and burdens and adhere to a system of “fair play.”
The principles of justice and fairness can be thought of as rules of “fair play” for issues of social justice. Whether they turn out to be grounded in universal laws or ones that are more context-bound, these principles determine the way in which the various types of justice are carried out. For example, principles of distributive justice determine what counts as a “fair share” of particular good, while principles of retributive or restorative justice shape our response to activity that violates a society’s rules of “fair play.” Social justice requires both that the rules be fair, and also that people play by the rules.
People often frame justice issues in terms of fairness and invoke principles of justice and fairness to explain their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the organizations they are part of, as well as their state or government.[3] They want institutions to treat them fairly and to operate according to fair rules. What constitutes fair treatment and fair rules is often expressed by a variety of justice principles.
Doctrine of Deserts, Equity, Equality, and Need
The principles of equity, equality, and need are most relevant in the context of distributive justice, but might play a role in a variety of social justice issues.[4] These principles all appeal to the notion of desert, the idea that fair treatment is a matter of giving people what they deserve. In general, people deserve to be rewarded for their effort and productivity, punished for their transgressions, treated as equal persons, and have their basic needs met. However, because these principles may come into conflict, it is often difficult to achieve all of these goals simultaneously.
According to the principle of equity, a fair economic system is one that distributes goods to individuals in proportion to their input. While input typically comes in the form of productivity, ability or talent might also play a role. People who produce more or better products…either by working harder, or by being more talented, this argument goes, should be paid more for their efforts than should people who produce less. Note that this sort of distribution may not succeed in meeting the needs of all members of society.
In addition, the idea that justice requires the unequal treatment of unequals is in tension with the principle of equality. This principle of egalitarianism suggests that the fairest allocation is one that distributes benefits and burdens equally among all parties. If there are profits of $100,000, and 10 people in the company, the principle of equality would suggest that everyone would get $10,000. This principle, however, ignores differences in effort, talent, and productivity. Also, because people have different needs, an equal initial distribution may not result in an equal outcome.
A principle of need, on the other hand, proposes that we strive for an equal outcome in which all society or group members get what they need. Thus poor people would get more money, and richer people would get less. This principle is sometimes criticized because it does not recognize differences in productive contributions or distinguish between real needs and purported needs.
Some have suggested that equity, equality, and need are not principles adopted for their own sake, but rather ones endorsed to advance some social goal.[5] For example, while equity tends to foster productivity, principles of equality and need tend to stress the importance of positive interpersonal relationships and a sense of belonging among society members.
