Former Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Commissioner John H.T. Stewart, has weighed in on the ongoing controversy surrounding the leadership of the House of Representatives. The Supreme Court of Liberia is set to hear a petition filed by former Speaker Fonati Koffa, seeking a declaratory judgment that could potentially annul the current speakership of Richard Koon. The petition addresses what Koffa claims is the illegitimacy of Koon’s leadership, which has generated considerable debate in the country.
Stewart points to the ambiguity of the Supreme Court’s earlier decision as a key factor in the continued dispute over the leadership of the House. He notes that former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf had accurately identified the Court’s decision as the root cause of the controversy. According to Stewart, this decision has paved the way for Koffa’s continued claims to the speakership.
The situation was further complicated by comments from Associate Justice Yarmie Gbeissy, who recently suggested that the absence of Supreme Court Justices from President Joseph Boakai’s State of the Nation Address was a deliberate act intended to signal the illegality of the current legislative assembly. Justice Gbeissy’s remarks added fuel to the fire, leading to more questions about the legitimacy of the House. Critics have questioned why the judiciary, under Chief Justice Yuoh, participated in budget hearings and why the Judiciary’s current budget is based on an assembly that the Court deems illegitimate.
With the nation now awaiting the Court’s final ruling, there are high expectations for clarity and resolution. Stewart emphasized that the legal and constitutional requirements for a sitting of the House are clear: a quorum of a simple majority is necessary for the House to function. He argues that Koffa has never been able to meet this requirement, which makes it impossible for him to preside over any legitimate session of the House.
Stewart also critiques the concept of a “Minority Sitting,” which has been referenced by the Court, asserting that such a term is constitutionally unfounded and serves only to undermine the legitimacy of the House’s leadership. According to Stewart, the Constitution does not provide for such a concept, and he urges the Court to dismiss it in favor of strict adherence to the constitutional provisions that govern legislative proceedings. He emphasizes that a Speaker can only be removed by a two-thirds majority, but without a quorum, no legislative business can take place, rendering the House effectively paralyzed.
Stewart raises concerns about the potential political ramifications for Koffa should the Supreme Court decide in his favor. Even if the Court orders a return to the status quo, Koffa would still need the approval of the majority in the House to advance his agenda. Without majority support, he could find himself politically impotent, with his tenure as Speaker jeopardized by the Majority Bloc’s ability to propose and vote on an agenda of their own.
In conclusion, Stewart suggests that regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, Koffa’s political future as Speaker remains uncertain. He questions what Koffa hopes to gain from this ongoing legal and political drama, noting that it is a situation unlike anything seen in contemporary Liberian history.
