The Supreme Court of Liberia has reserved its ruling in the much-publicized case between embattled J. Fonati Koffa and the self-styled Majority Bloc of the House of Representatives, smartly keeping its cards to the chest.
The high court in its decision declined to announce a specific date for the resumption of the case. It remains to be seen whether the reservation is a rejection or approval of Speaker Koffa’s prohibition.
Recently, Speaker Koffa petitioned the Supreme Court of Liberia for a writ of mandamus. The embattled Speaker 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.
During Wednesday’s hearing, 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 “breakaway lawmakers” prayed the court to leave the happenings at the National Legislature, stating that it is political and it violates no constitutional statute.
But Koffa’s legal team 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.”
At the same time, embattled Speaker Koffa 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’s Standing Rules.
In their prayer, they argued that the sitting of the majority is unconstitutional because they refused to sit under a legitimate speaker, therefore, any decisions taken thereof are illegal, citing Article 33 of the 1986 Constitution.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
“Article 33 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 a joint session, the presiding officer of the House Representatives shall preside.”
Koffa’s lawyer further argued, “We ask the Supreme Court to declare the action of the majority as unconstitutional as it will set the precedence for tomorrow. If you don’t, the majority anywhere, whether right or wrong can do anything because they are in the majority.”
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Justice has 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.
