By: Contributing Writer
Supreme Court Entrains Legal Argument in Bill of Information Filed by Embattled House Speaker Fonati Koffa
Monrovia – The Supreme Court on Wednesday, March 26, 2025, sharply criticized the Bloc for failing to adhere to proper legislative procedures in their ongoing efforts to remove Speaker J. Fonati Koffa.
The Court emphasized that any attempt to unseat the Speaker must follow constitutional guidelines, including the requirement for a legitimate House session and the backing of at least 49 votes in the current situation where the entire membership is 73.
The constitution says the removal would require two thirds majority of the totoal membership of the house.
However, during the hearing of the Bill of Information, the Supreme Court clarified that at no point in their opinion they referred to embattled Speaker Koffa as the “legitimate speaker.”
During a hearing on Wednesday, Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene Gyapay Yuoh and the Associate Justices expressed concern over the chaos caused by the actions of lawmakers on Capitol Hill, which, according to the high court, violated established constitutional and procedural norms.
They referenced the arson attack on the House of Representatives and the fight for a parking space as products of the political impasse at the House.
According to Associate Justice Yussif D. Kaba, the actions of the Majority Bloc in opening a parallel session, separate from the constitutional session, could lead to further chaos.
The Supreme Court had previously ruled that any legislative action, including the removal of a speaker, must be in line with Articles 33 and 49 of the 1986 Constitution of Liberia.
Article 33 of the Liberian Constitution, found in Chapter 5, outlines the requirements for conducting legislative business, stating that a simple majority of each House constitutes a quorum, and a lower number can adjourn and compel the attendance of absent members.
While Article 49 of the Liberian Constitution, states that the House of Representatives shall elect, every six years, a Speaker (the presiding officer), a Deputy Speaker, and other officers necessary for the proper functioning of the House.
Despite this ruling, the two blocs continued to hold separate sessions, with embattled Speaker Koffa presiding over the Minority, while the majority elected ‘Speaker’ Richard Koon presides over the Majority.
During the hearing, one of the lead lawyers for the Majority Bloc, Cllr. Arthur Johnson requested the Court to enforce its December 6, 2024, ruling on the political impasse at the House of Representatives.
Cllr. Johnson was scrutinized by the Justices regarding the matter to be brought before the Court in the Bill of Information.
The Justices questioned him about the Court’s mandate issued on December 6, 2024, but he struggled to clearly state the Court’s position.
The purpose of a Bill of Information is to bring attention to violations or interference with a ruling or decision taken by the Court. Cllr. Johnson said.
“A Bill of Information will lie to prevent a Judge or any Judicial Officer who attempts to execute the mandate of the Supreme Court in an improper manner from doing so. A Bill of Information will also lie to prevent anyone from interfering with the Judgment and/or Mandate of the Supreme Court. The Bill of Information shall be vended before the Court en banc and shall be filed with the Clerk of Court.”
Justice Kaba further questioned Cllr. Johnson about the legal foundation for the Supreme Court enforcing its own ruling.
Cllr. Johnson admitted that the power to enforce laws or judgments rests solely with the Executive Branch. “Your Honors, there are provisions of laws, in fact, even though the enforcement of laws is constitutional, the Executive has the authority.
There are also numerous instances where Supreme Court opinions have been violated or disrespected, and parties have come to this Court through Bill of Information,” Cllr. Johnson asserted.
The legal team of the Minority Bloc further requested that the Court reaffirm its December 6 ruling.
Cllr. Johnson argued that the Majority Bloc had intentionally disregarded the Court’s order and continued “unconstitutional proceedings.”
Throughout the hearing, the Supreme Court sought to clarify which specific ruling of the Court was violated by the Majority Bloc that led to the Bill of Information.
Chief Justice Yuoh stated that the responsibility of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law, emphasizing that they cannot compel members of the House to attend sessions.
Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay also noted that while the Court cannot force the Legislature to act in a specific manner, it must ensure that actions are consistent with constitutional principles.
Similarly, Justice Kaba expressed doubt about the legal foundation of the Majority Bloc’s actions, questioning the validity of their claims in light of the Court’s previous ruling.
Cllr. Varney Sherman, representing the Majority Bloc, defended his clients’ actions, asserting that a majority of the House could convene a session without the Speaker’s presence.
Cllr. Sherman cited Article 33 of the 1986 Constitution, which provides that a simple majority of the House constitutes a quorum to transact business.
However, the Court swiftly rejected this argument, reaffirming that legislative proceedings must be presided over by a constitutionally elected Speaker, noting that only the Deputy Speaker may preside in the Speaker’s absence.
Chief Justice Yuoh pointed out that both sides referred to Article 33 of the Constitution, which mandates that legislative proceedings be overseen by a legitimate Speaker.
She questioned why the Majority Bloc would seek to hold a parallel session when Speaker Koffa, as the constitutionally elected Speaker, was still in office and presiding.
Justice Jamestta Haword Wolokollie warned that continued violations of the Constitution could set a dangerous precedent for future legislative actions.
“If the rules are ignored, it opens the door for further violations,” she cautioned, stressing the importance of maintaining procedural integrity.
The Supreme Court concluded by stating that it would not take sides but had clarified the legal interpretation that the House must follow to resolve the ongoing crisis.
Legal experts believe the Court’s sharp rebuke of Cllr. Sherman implied that the Majority Bloc, led by Rep. Koon, had ignored the December 2024 ruling, which declared their attempt to remove Speaker Koffa unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court has reserved its ruling for a later date.
