By: Trokon Wrepue – trokon1992seokin@gmail.com
Monrovia, Liberia – One of the Justices of the Liberia’s Supreme Court has vehemently criticized the decision of his colleagues to rule in favor of the ‘Bill of Information’ filed by embattled House Speaker Fonati Koffa.
The ruling comes as a response to an Amended Bill of Information filed by embattled Speaker Koffa and some members of the House minority, challenging what they described as unconstitutional conduct by Representative Richard Koon and Deputy Speaker Thomas Fallah, among others and majority members of the House.
In a detailed dissenting opinion rendered against the ruling of the majority Justices, Justice Gbeisay, described his colleagues’ decision as a fundamental misapplication of Rule IV, Part 12 of the Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of Liberia.
The justice argued that the Bill of Information emanating from by Speaker J. Fonati Koffa and others was procedurally improper and sought relief beyond the scope of what a Bill of Information is designed to achieve. “A Bill of Information Will Not Lie,” Justice Gbeisay said.
Justice Gbeisay said the Bill of Information is a narrow procedural instrument, meant solely to prevent a judge or individual from interfering with or improperly executing a specific mandate of the Supreme Court.
In this instance, Gbeisay insists no such mandate was issued in the Court’s December 6, 2024, judgment regarding the constitutionality of certain actions taken by the House’s “majority bloc.”
“The judgment of December 6 contains no mandate, instruction, or order directed at any individual or body, aside from a routine direction to the Clerk of Court to inform the parties,” Justice Gbeisay wrote. “Without a mandate, there can be no violation thereof, and thus, a Bill of Information cannot lie.”
He warned that allowing such use of a Bill of Information sets a dangerous precedent and opens the door for any dissatisfied litigant to use the procedure as a tool for rearguing settled matters or seeking declaratory relief from the Supreme Court, contrary to its procedural limits. kwitee
Justice Gbiesay Defends Budget Passage
Associate Justice Gbeisay dissent also defended the passage of the 2025 National Budget by the “majority bloc” and its subsequent approval by the Senate and the President contrary to the ruling that the group of lawmakers acted illegally during the period under review.
He acknowledged the ongoing crisis in the Legislature but said that the Executive acted out of necessity to preserve the state’s functionality.
The Associate Justice invoked the international law doctrine of state self-preservation, explaining that without a budget, government operations—including health services, salaries, and the functioning of the judiciary—would have collapsed. “This is now the 2025 fiscal budget which this government is utilizing to operate,” he noted. “The President acted within his constitutional duties to ensure the survival of the state.”
