IPNEWS: Last Friday, the Supreme Court of Liberia ruled that the ongoing sitting by the self-styled majority bloc is ‘ultra vires, inclining that “Majority Bloc” acted beyond its authority in recent decisions to elect a speaker, reshuffled various committees, including the choosing to hold sessions in the joint chambers of the Legislature.
The world ‘ultra vires’ is a Latin phrase that means in Law, “Acting beyond the powers”. It’s a common law principle that describes an action that is taken without legal authority.
The Court in its Friday, December 6, 2024 ruling, also mandated that the House of Representatives must conduct its activities in accordance with the law, i.e. “Any sitting not in conformity with Articles 33 and 49 of the Liberian 1986 Constitution is ‘Ultra vires’ (Unconstitutional). Go back and act accordingly.”
Even though the Supreme court has ruled, however, signals coming out of majority bloc suggest that the bloc will not adhere to the mandate of the supreme court forcing the Executive Branch to act in keeping with Chapter 12 of the panel law in its right to exercise the right to enforcement of the Supreme court’s ruling.
Constitutional experts tell the authoritative Independent Probe Newspaper that any attempt by members of the majority bloc to resist the Supreme court ruling will cast an adverse cloud on the legitimacy of the Liberian Senate that would compel them to close session.
“If this happens, there be a showdown of the entire functionary of government, under this situation the President as Commander-in-chief will have to declare a state of emergency.”
“We cannot allow our country go down this road. Members of the House of Representative, particularly the majority bloc must respect the Supreme court’s ruling to save Liberia.” A constitutional Lawyer preferring not to be name told IPNEWS.
Addressing concerns regarding its jurisdiction, the Court reaffirmed its authority to intervene in the House crisis, citing Article 66 of the 1986 Constitution of the Republic of Liberia as the basis for its ruling contrary to members of the majority bloc that it had no biding authority.
Article 66 of the 1986 constitution states: “The Supreme Court shall be the final arbiter of constitutional issues and shall exercise final appellate jurisdiction in all cases whether emanating from courts of record, courts not of record, administrative agencies, autonomous agencies or any other authority, both as to law and fact except cases involving ambassadors, ministers, or cases in which a county is a party. In all such cases, the Supreme Court shall exercise originate jurisdiction. The Legislature shall make no law nor create any exceptions as would deprive the Supreme Court of any of the powers granted herein.”
The continued controversy has garnered considerable attention, centers on allegations regarding the legislative conduct of specific representatives within the 55th Legislature of Liberia.
Majority Bloc Defiance
On the heels of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the lead Lawyer representing the Majority bloc seeking to remove House Speaker Cllr. J. Fonati Koffa, Cllr. Varney Sherman, stated that the ruling by the Supreme court was a victory for the majority bloc, stressing that not a single action of the Majority was declared unconstitutional, illegal, null, and void.
Cllr. Sherman noted that effectively, the Petition of Speaker Koffa and others were denied.
“Even the constitutional authority of the minority to compel members to attend session in order to establish a quorum to do business, the Supreme Court said there is no legal mechanism to accomplish that. The Supreme Court then held that the parties should return and conduct themselves in keeping with law. And my interpretation is that since no action of the Majority was declared unconstitutional, illegal, null, and void, then the Majority could proceed while continuing to conduct themselves in keeping with law. In effect, the Majority won.”
“It is now the responsibility of the Executive to recognize Hon. Richard Nagbe Koon as the Speaker and to accord him, not Hon. Koffa, the necessary prerequisites of the position of Speaker.” Cllr. Varney Sherman intoned.
Constitutionality of Supreme Court’s Ruling
As the debate to understand the context of the Surpeme court’s ruling envloves, renowned Human Rights Cllr. Tiawon Saye Gongloe has petitioned the Supreme Court for AMICUS CURIAE to aid the Court arrive at a decision that will prove to Liberians and members of the conflicting parties at the lower House that the Court holds the supremacy of the law over politics under the constitution.
In his petition filed before the full Bench of the Supreme Court December 7, Cllr. Gongloe said following his over thirty-six years of practice of law, he can fully prove that the Court has Jurisdiction over leadership disputes in any of the two houses of the Legislature.
Cllr. Gongloe also indicated that there are two petitions before the Supreme court including the first petition filed on November 22, 2024 which seeks the court’s decision on the constitutionality of certain actions taken by some members of the House of Representatives.
The Former Liberia National Bar Association President further disclosed these actions include the convening of a plenary of the house, not under the authority of the Speaker, the constitutionally recognized presiding officer of the House of Representatives, contrary to Article 49 of the Constitution of Liberia.
He also noted that the suspension of three members of the House of Representatives, namely, Edward Flomo, Abu Kamara and Marvin Cole by the group of representatives who convened without regard for the authority of the Speaker; the restructuring of the leadership of the House of Representatives of the said group of representatives; and the seizure of the 2025 Draft National Budget sent to the House by the President through the Speaker.
According to him, Whether or not a majority of the members of the House of Representatives has the legal authority to stay away from a regular session of the House or convene not under the authority of the Speaker, pointing out that the holding is no.
The Court’s action in determining the constitutionality of certain actions of the legislative branch is not interference, but an exercise of its authority given by articles 2, 65 and 66 of the Constitution of Liberia, which provide as follows: One, “ This Constitution is the supreme and fundamental law of Liberia and its provisions shall have binding force and effect on all authorities and persons throughout the Republic…” at article 2; two “The Judicial Power of the Republic shall be vested in a Supreme Court and such subordinate courts as the legislature may from time to time establish…” at article 65; and three “The Supreme Court shall be the final arbiter of constitutional issues and shall exercise final appellate jurisdiction in all cases whether emanating from courts of record, courts not of record, administrative agencies, autonomous agencies or any other authority, both as to law and fact except cases involving ambassadors, ministers, or cases in which a county is a party, he argued.
In contrast, Cllr Augustine S. Chea states that this Court’s interpretation of Article 33 of the Constitution (1986), is that whether a simple majority is sitting or a lower number, in both cases a Presiding Officer, defined in Article 49 of the Constitution is the Speaker, and in his/her absence, the Deputy Speaker.
Cllr. Chea said the Supreme Court interpreted Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution as written: that the Speaker is the Presiding Officer (Article 49); and as Presiding Officer, the Speaker presides over Plenary Sittings or Sessions of the HOR; whether it is a simple majority that is sitting (a quorum), which can hold sessions, or less (a lower number), which cannot hold sessions (Article 33), the sittings or sessions must be presided over by the Speaker, the Presiding Officer. That the Deputy Speaker presides in the absence of the Speaker; that is, when the Speaker is not at work, or if he asks the Deputy Speaker to preside, or if he recuses himself from presiding.
On the controversial of the Speaker presiding over a minority [as in this case], Cllr. Chea states that the Court is devoid of the mechanism for how the minority is to compel attendance of absent members, especially when the Court acknowledges that it is without authority to delve into the merits of this issue because it has no constitutional authority to do so. And as the Court said, and rightly so, the Constitution does not provide for how absent members should be compelled to attend Plenary Sessions. Therefore, it remains a political question until the Constitution is amended or the Legislature enacts a law or a rule providing for how this can be done. Until then, members of the HOR must voluntarily fulfill their constitutional obligation by attending regular sessions presided over by the Speaker.
On the conclusion of the Ruling, Cllr. Chea maintains that the quotation of “WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, any sittings or actions by members of the Legislature not in conformity with the intent of Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution are ultra vires. Hence, members of the House of Representatives are to conduct themselves accordingly, satisfied the Alternative writ prayed for by Speaker Koffa to determined whether or not the constitutionality of some actions taken by the “majority bloc,” that is, holding sessions, suspending members, restructuring committees, taking possession of the budget, and electing a Speaker.
“So, the Court summed up everything here (after first recognizing that the Speaker is the Presiding Officer): that “any sittings and actions by the Legislature” (the “majority bloc”) inconsistent with Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution are beyond or outside their constitutional powers (ultra vires). And if, by parity of reasoning, the sittings and actions by the “majority bloc” (without the Speaker, who is the Presiding Officer, presiding) are “ultra vires,” then it follows that everything done by them (holding sessions, suspending members, restructuring committees, taking possession of the budget, and electing a Speaker) is illegal. In other words, that they had no authority or not within their powers to do so.” Cllr. Augustine Chea maintains.
For his part, Hon. Musa Hassan Bility, Representative of District 7, Nimba County, averred that the ruling by the Supreme Court of Liberia must resonates far beyond its chambers, touching on fundamental issues of governance, the rule of law, and constitutional clarity.
Bility states that as a Legislator representing the people of District 7, Nimba County, He believes this decision offers both challenges and opportunities for our democracy, especially at the heart of the Court’s ruling lies a deep-seated tension between legislative autonomy and constitutional interpretation, underscoring the fragile balance of power within Liberia’s democratic framework.
The Nimba District 7 lawmaker said the decision by the Supreme court addresses the actions of certain members of the House of Representatives in light of Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution, sets a critical precedent which raises urgent questions about governance, separation of powers, and institutional accountability while reminding us of the weight of responsibility we bear as lawmakers.
“The Supreme Court’s Ruling: A Legal and Constitutional Analysis
1. Judicial Mandate
The Supreme Court reaffirmed its mandate under Article 66 of the Constitution, declaring itself the final arbiter of constitutional issues. By asserting its jurisdiction over legislative dissensions, the Court clarified its role as an interpreter of the Constitution, not a creator of laws. This distinction is fundamental to the principle of separation of powers, a cornerstone of our democracy.
2. Clarification of Articles 33 and 49
• Article 33 defines quorum requirements and permits the enforcement of attendance for legislative sessions. However, the Constitution lacks detailed mechanisms for compelling absent members to attend.
• Article 49 unequivocally names the Speaker as the Presiding Officer of the legislature, with the Deputy Speaker filling this role only in the Speaker’s absence.
The Court harmonized these provisions, ruling that any legislative actions or sessions conducted outside the Speaker’s authority are unconstitutional and therefore ultra vires—beyond legal authority.
3. The Separation of Powers Doctrine
By declining to prescribe methods for quorum enforcement or legislative attendance, the Supreme Court upheld the boundaries of its constitutional mandate. This decision reminds us that the legislature, not the judiciary, bears the responsibility to address procedural gaps through laws or rules.
The Political Implications for Liberia’s Legislature
The ruling has significant political consequences for the House of Representatives. It highlights systemic weaknesses within our legislative framework, where the absence of clear procedural rules has led to conflict and dysfunction. More importantly, it underscores the urgent need for unity and reform within the House.
1. The Legislature’s Responsibility
The Supreme Court has placed the burden of resolution squarely on us, the lawmakers. It is now our duty to:
• Draft and enact enabling laws or standing rules to address procedural ambiguities.
• Promote cohesion and dialogue within the House to restore functionality.
• Uphold constitutional principles in all legislative actions.
2. Affirming the Speaker’s Role
The ruling reaffirms the Speaker’s authority under Article 49. However, this authority must be wielded with a commitment to inclusivity and dialogue, recognizing the divisions within the House. As legislators, we must respect the Constitution while finding common ground to move forward.
3. The Need for Statesmanship
The Court’s decision presents an opportunity for reconciliation. The Speaker’s willingness to consider a voluntary transition offers a pathway to healing divisions. It is incumbent upon us to seize this moment, not as a victory for one faction but as a chance to strengthen our democracy.
A Path Forward: Unity and Accountability
This ruling has exposed the fragility of our legislative processes, but it also offers a roadmap for progress. As representatives of the people, we must rise to the challenge of building a stronger, more effective House of Representatives.
Recommendations for Action
1. Legislative Reform: Enact clear rules that address quorum enforcement, presiding authority, and procedural conflicts.
2. Fostering Dialogue: Bridge divisions within the House through open and honest dialogue.
3. Strengthening Governance: Work collaboratively with the Executive Branch to ensure a functional government that serves the people.
A Call to Leadership
To my fellow legislators, the Supreme Court has provided clarity, but it cannot legislate unity or enforce cooperation. That task falls to us. As representatives of the Liberian people, we must put aside personal and political differences to prioritize the interests of the nation.
Defining the Future of Liberia’s Democracy
This moment is a test of our commitment to the rule of law and democratic principles. It is a test of whether we, as lawmakers, can rise above division to fulfill our constitutional duties. As the representative of District 7, Nimba County, I pledge to do my part to ensure that this ruling serves as a catalyst for unity and reform within our legislature.
Liberia’s future depends on our ability to strengthen our institutions and lead with integrity. The choice before us is clear: we can allow division to persist, or we can come together to build a better Liberia for future generations. Let us choose unity. Let us choose progress. Let us choose Liberia.”
Initial step
The Supreme Court of Liberia during its hearing on Wednesday, November 27, 2024, reserved its ruling (To an unknown date) in the case brought by embattled House Speaker Cllr. J. Fonati Koffa, who has petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus. Koffa is seeking a declarative judgment to declare the actions of the majority bloc of the House of Representatives—specifically, his removal and the handling of the 2025 national budget—as unconstitutional.
The majority bloc, represented by Cllr. Varney Sherman, urged the Supreme Court to refrain from intervening in legislative matters, asserting that such issues are inherently political and do not violate any constitutional provisions. “You will not get involved with legislative matters unless the process is unconstitutional. The House of Representatives has the power to remove the Speaker and they have done that. So, leave it,” Cllr. Sherman argued.
The majority bloc contended that due process was followed in Koffa’s removal. They detailed that on October 21, a letter was sent to Koffa, inviting him to a session convened by the majority bloc to ensure he received due process.
Although the letter was acknowledged on October 22, Koffa did not attend the session. The bloc stated that a complaint was filed, a committee was established, and a citation was issued, but Koffa chose to disregard the proceedings. With this, the “Majority bloc” prayed the court to leave the happenings at the National Legislature, stating that it is political and it violates no constitutional statute.
The petitioners prayed the court to declare the action of the majority bloc as unconstitutional and that the issue of plenary only exists when the speaker presides. They argued that house rules provide that “legislative provision must adhere to constitutional provision.”
Meanwhile, the Speaker through his representation before the court, Cllr. Author Johnson prayed the court to grant the petition prayed for by the Speaker. He asserted that the removal of the speaker violates the constitution and the house-standing rules. In their prayer, they argued that the sitting of the majority is unconstitutional because they refuse to sit under a legitimate speaker, therefore, any decisions taken thereof are illegal, citing Article 33 of the 1986 constitution.
“Article 33 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 a joint session, the presiding officer of the House Representatives shall preside.”
They further argued: “We ask the Supreme Court to declare the action of the majority as unconstitutional as it will set the procedure for tomorrow. If you don’t, the majority anywhere, whether right or wrong can do anything because they are in the majority.” At the same time, the Ministry of Justice advised the Supreme Court to make a decision based on violation of constitutional matter.
“The Ministry of Justice prays this court to drop it.” The Ministry which was invited not as a party but as dean of the Supreme Court Bar to advise whether or not the matter unfolding at the House of Representatives is in violation of constitutional statute, asserted that there is no constitutional statute violated.
The Ministry in its prayer stated that the matter before the court is questioning whether or not there is a violation of the constitutional statute, in keeping with section 9.6 of the civil procedure law and section 2.2 of the executive law, there is no violation of the constitutional statute.
Koffa’s Controversial Removal
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.
The resolution was read aloud during a session on Thursday by Acting Chief Clerk Comic Chea, following a motion introduced by Representative James Kolleh of Bong County. The Bloc’s decision comes in the wake of a specialized committee’s report, which recommended that Koffa’s position be declared vacant due to his failure to respond to serious allegations raised by six lawmakers within the bloc.
The Origin
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 resolution references Article 49 of the Liberian Constitution and Rule 9.1 of the House’s Rules and Procedures, which allow for the removal of the Speaker for cause.
The resolution accuses Koffa of holding multiple positions as a consultant and lawyer for various government agencies and private companies, including the Liberia Petroleum and Refining Corporation and the Central Bank of Liberia.
