Monrovia, Liberia – In a strongly worded statement posted to social media, former Montserrado County Representative candidate and current legal commentator, Cllr. Fubbi F. A. Henries, has criticized the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on legislative procedures as “faulty and erroneous,” particularly in its interpretation of absenteeism, parallel sessions, and legislative authority.
Henries aimed at the Court’s position that sessions held without the Speaker are unconstitutional, arguing that being marked “absent” does not necessarily mean one is outside the country.
Drawing a parallel to classroom roll calls, he explained that an individual may be physically present on the premises but still be recorded as absent for failing to respond during roll call.
“Representative Koffa was absent. He was not present during roll calls. His physical location is immaterial. The fact remains, he did not answer his name during the sessions,” Henries maintained.
Henries further asserted that no provision of law prohibits the holding of parallel sessions, especially in circumstances where a majority of lawmakers have declared a vote of no confidence in the Speaker.
He argued that such actions are constitutionally grounded and become necessary when legislative business is obstructed.
Citing Article 49 of the Liberian Constitution, Henries emphasized that the Speaker, Deputy Speaker, and other elected officers of the House may be removed “for cause” by a two-thirds majority, without any requirement for the Speaker’s presence or the need for a formal hearing.
“The Constitution supersedes all House rules. It does not mandate that the Speaker be present for his removal. He is first among equals—not the owner of the House,” Henries said.
He also referenced Article 33, which permits the Legislature to conduct official business with a simple majority, reinforcing his position that legislative sessions can proceed lawfully even in the Speaker’s absence.
Turning his attention to the judiciary, Henries contended that the Supreme Court lacks appellate jurisdiction over the internal workings of the Legislature, citing Article 66.
“The Legislature is not subject to the Court,” he stated, warning of what he views as judicial overreach.
He also invoked Articles 42 and 44, the former shielding lawmakers from prosecution related to their official duties, and the latter establishing contempt powers to protect the Legislature from obstruction.
In this light, Henries questioned the Court’s authority to issue stay orders against legislative actions.
“The President and the Supreme Court cannot interfere with or obstruct legislative functions. Judicial blunders must be corrected so that future justice can learn from these mistakes,” he asserted.
While affirming his respect for the offices held by members of the Supreme Court, Henries made it clear that respect does not preclude criticism, particularly when constitutional lines are, in his view, being crossed.
“They are human and subject to error,” he concluded. “We must correct them now in the interest of the rule of law and institutional balance,” he noted.
His remarks have reignited public debate around the separation of powers, legislative independence, and the scope of judicial oversight, critical themes in Liberia’s evolving constitutional democracy.
