IPNEWS: The Supreme Court of Liberia’s Justice-in-Chambers, Yusuf D. Kaba, has officially dismissed and denied the Bill of Information filed by former Montserrado County District #10 Representative Yekeh Kolubah.
Issued on Wednesday, May 20, 2026, Chambers Justice Yusuf D. Kaba rejected the former lawmaker’s petition, leaving the House of Representatives’ decision to expel him intact.
The Court determined that contempt charges against the House could not be sustained because there was no “clear and convincing evidence” that the lawmakers had been lawfully served or given proper notice of the stay order before taking action.
Representatives from the House, including the Chairman of the Committee on Rules, Order, and Administration, James Kolleh, welcomed the ruling as confirmation that the Legislature acted within its legal and constitutional authority.
Kolubah had originally filed the Bill of Information accusing the House of Representatives of “flagrant defiance” for proceeding with his expulsion despite a judicial stay order being put in place while his initial Writ of Prohibition was evaluated.
Following the dismissal, Kolubah’s legal team, led by Cllr. Jonathan Massaquoi, announced they do not accept the single-chamber decision and will file an appeal before the Full Bench of the Supreme Court to seek a total reversal.
The Bill of Information filed by former Montserrado County District #10 Representative Yekeh Y. Kolubah focus on challenging his expulsion from the House of Representatives, which he claims was a flagrant violation of judicial authority and constitutional due process.
The filing was formally dismissed by Supreme Court Chambers Justice Yussif D. Kaba, prompting Kolubah’s legal team to announce an appeal to the full bench of the Supreme Court.
The primary legal claims and details contained in Yekeh Kolubah’s petition include:
Defiance of a Stay Order: Kolubah argued that his initial April 16, 2026, petition for a Writ of Prohibition triggered a mandatory stay order from the Supreme Court. He alleged that the House deliberately ignored judicial authority by moving forward with his expulsion on April 17, 2026, while the stay order was active.
Contempt of Court Charges: The bill petitioned the Supreme Court to cite the House of Representatives leadership—specifically Speaker Richard Nagbe Koon and Deputy Speaker Thomas Fallah—for contempt for ignoring the court’s timeline and proceeding with disciplinary actions.
Nullification of Legislative Punishments: Kolubah requested the court to completely nullify all actions taken against him by the House Plenary. This included overturning his expulsion, reversing the closure of his legislative office, and ordering the return of his confiscated government vehicles.
Denial of Due Process: He claimed the House violated Article 20 of the Liberian Constitution and Rule 48 of the House Standing Rules by stripping him of his seat without affording him a fair legislative hearing or the necessary constitutional protections.
The House of Representatives expelled Kolubah following a resolution compiled by the Rules, Order, and Administration Committee. The expulsion stemmed from complaints filed by District #3 Representative Sumo Mulbah and Police Inspector General Gregory Coleman. They cited gross misconduct, breach of duty, and “reckless” public statements regarding the Liberia-Guinea border dispute that allegedly undermined national security and Liberia’s territorial integrity.
Lawyers representing the House of Representatives successfully argued for the quashing of the case based on the following grounds:
Proper Service Failures: The House leadership claimed they never legally or properly received the court’s citation or stay order prior to the expulsion vote, making it impossible to hold them in contempt.
Abandonment of Internal Remedies: The House argued that Kolubah was originally offered due process but chose to walk away and abandon his internal legislative hearing before resorting to external legal action.
The Supreme Court ultimately agreed that contempt could not be sustained because there was no clear evidence that the House had received lawful, constructive notice of the court order before taking its vote
