Monrovia, Liberia- The Supreme Court Justice-in-Chambers Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay is yet to issue the Peremptory in the ongoing political standoff at the House of Representatives on Capitol Hill.
Justice Gbeisay is yet to take a definite position on the political turmoil on Capitol Hill between the Majority Bloc of 44 lawmakers and the Minority Bloc of 29 lawmakers.
It can be recalled that on Friday, October 25, 2024, Justice Gbeisay issued an alternative writ, thereby temporally halting the procedure leading to the removal of the 55th House Speaker.
An alternative writ is a type of court order that tells someone to either do something or explains why they shouldn’t have to do it.
An alternative writ is usually issued by a higher court, like an appellate court, when someone asks for help with a legal issue. It’s part of the process to ensure fairness in the legal system.
An alternative writ differs from an ordinary writ issued in court.
A regular writ typically orders someone to take action without giving them a chance to explain. On the other hand, an alternative writ allows the person to respond, making it a more flexible option.
An alternative writ is often used in cases where someone believes they have been wronged and wants the court to intervene, like in this case involving the embattled House Speaker.
It’s common in situations involving government actions or decisions. Justice Gbeisay immediately cited both parties to a scheduled conference following the alternative writ.
On Monday, November 4, 2024, both sides convened for a scheduled conference before His Hon. Associate Justice Gbeisay.
The conference, centered on the legal and procedural validity of the Majority bloc’s attempt to remove Speaker Koffa, drew notable legal representations on both sides.
The embattled Speaker was represented by former impeached Associate Justice Kabineh Ja’neh and U.S. Sanctioned Cllr. Cyrenius Cephas, while former Grand Cape Mount County Senator and U.S.-sanctioned Cllr. Varney Sherman stood and represented the Majority bloc.
Justice Ja’neh and Cephas argued that their client, Speaker Koffa, had not been given due process to remove him by the Majority Bloc.
Koffa’s legal team further argues that the Majority Bloc had bypassed essential procedural steps in their ouster attempt.
They claimed that no formal complaint had been lodged against Speaker Koffa, asserting that the Majority bloc is merely collecting signatures to justify their push for his removal.
The Chambers Justice questioned the Majority Bloc through their legal counsel Cllr. Varney Sherman about this oversight, probing whether the Speaker has been formally informed of the charges leading to the ouster effort.
Cllr. Sherman argued that the Speaker of the 55th Legislature his rights as Speaker of the 55th Legislature, noting that his procedural protocol had been respected.
This claim was swiftly refuted by Koffa’s legal team, who maintained that without a formal complaint, the process lacked legitimacy.
Associate Justice Gbeisay reminded all parties of the importance of adhering to due process and urged the Majority bloc to conduct their actions within the proper legal channels, specifically in the main chambers, Cllr. Sherman agreed to comply with this guidance.
Following the conference, Representative Samuel Kogar, leader of the Majority bloc, indicated that a legislative session would occur, though he was uncertain whether the session would convene in the main or joint chambers.
The situation remains tense on Capitol Hill, with all eyes on the session, which could determine the future leadership of the House.
Legal pundits argue that immediately after November 4, the Chambers Justice is expected to either issue or decline to issue the preemptory.
It’s not yet clear when Justice Gbeisay will issue or decline the preemptory writ.
A peremptory writ, or court order, is a legal command from a higher court that requires a lower court or government official to perform a specific action immediately.
A peremptory writ is not common in everyday legal matters, as it is reserved for urgent situations.
It is a way for the court to enforce compliance and protect the rights of individuals or groups when other methods may not be effective.
This type of writ emphasizes the importance of timely action in the legal process, ensuring that justice is served without unnecessary hindrances.
Suppose the Chambers Justice issues the preemptory writ. In that case, it allows the adverse party to file their response either to agree with the justice in chambers’ decision or disagree with the conclusion of the justice in chambers, thus taking an appeal with the full bench of the Supreme Court.
As it stands, everyone is waiting to see whether Justice Gbeisay will issue the preemptory writ or decline to issue the writ in the coming days.
Legal pundits argue that the House of Representatives situation will not end its legal battle if the Majority bloc remains firm with their decision to remove Speaker Koffa.
All eyes are now on the Supreme Court Justice-in-Chambers to see whether he will issue the preemptory writ in the coming days.
