—Setup Rule of Law Caucus
IPNEWS: It has been more than three months since the impasse at the House of Representatives erupted without resolution. At the moment it seems to be taking a major turn following today’s formation of the ‘Rule of Law Caucus’, by more than thirty (30) members of the House of Representatives.
The ‘Rule of Law Caucus’, comprising both members of the ‘majority bloc’ and pro-Koffa bloc’ met Saturday, January 4, 2025, at the Home of Bong County Representative Marvin Cole.
According to sources attending Saturday’s meeting, the group elected Nimba county District No. 7 Representative Musa Hassan Bility as its Chairman, to initiate consultation for the return the Legislature to constitutional order.
Several persons attending the Saturday, January 4, 2025, including former and current Lawmakers, with the group overwhelming voting Representative Musa Hassan Bility, as chairman, for the ‘Rule of Law Caucus’.
IPEWS understand that Representative Bility and members of the Rule of Law Caucus are expected to hold a major news conference to address the leadership impasse, the annual budget and the upcoming address to the Legislature by President Joseph N. Boakai.
It may be recalled, the Supreme Court of Liberia on December 6, 2024, ruled that any actions taken by members of the House of Representatives without following Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution were invalid and beyond their legal power .
In a unanimous decision signed by Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene G. Yuoh and all Associate Justices, the Court declared actions taken by the House of Representatives ‘majority bloc’ as ultra vires, effectively nullifying their attempts to restructure legislative leadership outside constitutional bounds. This ruling not only resolves the immediate crisis but also establishes crucial precedents for constitutional interpretation and legislative procedure.
The Court’s ruling emphasizes that the Constitution must be interpreted holistically, rather than through isolated provisions. Every constitutional provision carries equal importance, and when apparent discrepancies exist between different provisions, the Court must harmonize them if possible. This principle of constitutional interpretation provides a crucial framework for understanding the relationship between different constitutional provisions.
In its interpretation of Article 33 of the 1986 Constitution, the Court established that regardless of whether a simple majority is sitting, or a lower number is present, a Presiding Officer must be present. This Presiding Officer, as defined in Article 49, must be either the Speaker or, in their absence, the Deputy Speaker . This requirement creates a clear procedural mandate for all legislative sessions.
The Court identified a significant constitutional gap regarding situations where the Speaker presides over a minority. The Constitution lacks any mechanism for compelling the attendance of absent members but also implies that those absent lawmakers cannot do anything outside the authority of the Presiding Officer. And advised the Legislature to fashion statutes or standing rules to address this issue. This procedural vacuum highlights the need for legislative action to establish clear rules for such situations.
Importantly, the Court explicitly acknowledged the limitations of its authority, stating that it cannot fill these procedural gaps for the Legislature, as doing so would violate the constitutional mandate on separation of powers. This recognition of institutional boundaries reinforces the democratic principle of separate but equal branches of government.
The ruling concludes with a clear directive: any sittings or actions by members of the Legislature not in conformity with Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution are ultra vires. This determination effectively invalidates actions taken without proper constitutional authority and requires members of the House of Representatives to conduct themselves following these constitutional requirements.
The unanimous nature of this decision, signed by Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene G. Yuoh and all Associate Justices, gives it particular weight and authority. This unity in constitutional interpretation provides clear guidance for all branches of government and strengthens the institutional framework of Liberian democracy. The ruling represents a defining moment in Liberian constitutional law, establishing that procedural requirements and constitutional mandates must be strictly observed in legislative operations.
