What does the Edwin Snowe-inspired Parliamentary delegation from ECOWAS propose to do in Liberia? Why is Snowe impressing his colleagues that a storm is brewing in the Legislature that threatens the Peace and stability of Liberia and the sub-region?
Was an ECOWAS delegation, for example, dispatched to Ghana in the wake of reported fist fights amongst parliamentarians while in session?
Also, recently, some members of Parliament belonging to the National Patriotic Party(NPP) declared that in the forthcoming elections, they would not contest the ticket of the ruling party.
However, the leaders of that party sought to withdraw their participation in Parliament and declare their seats vacant.
Eventually the case went to the Supreme Court but the Court ruled against the NPP arguing that no rule had been violated by the mere declaration that they would not contest on the ticket of the NPP in the upcoming December elections.
Why did ECOWAS not see it fit then to dispatch a mediation team to Ghana? What does the so-called mediation team which includes Senator Edwin Snowe hope to accomplish here?
This is aside from showboating and flaunting his immense but ill-acquired wealth in the face of his alleged second wife who is said to be a member of the Parliamentary delegation.
What is annoying, according to observers, is the fact the ECOWAS Court has found the Liberian government liable for wrongly convicting and impeaching Associate Justice Kabineh and ordered the restoration of his rights including his reinstatement and the payment of all due benefits.
It has not happened and to the best of publicly available information; the flagrant violation of Justice J’aneh rights has never attracted the concerns of the ECOWAS Parliament.
But before Koffa can even fully exhaust legally available remedies including an appeal to the full Bench of the Supreme Court, ECOWAS Parliament has waded into the fray completely uninvited.
This is in view of the fact that the Liberian Supreme Court has already spoken to the issue. House Speaker J. Fonati Koffa’s Writ of Prohibition filed before the Justice in-Chambers of the Supreme Court, His Honor Asspociate Justice Yamie Gbeissay was denied.
The Writ of Prohibition seeking to prevent majority members of the House of Representatives from holding session and conducting the business of the House absent the voluntary presence of Speaker Koffa was denied and it was by no means surprising.
This is primarily because members of the MAJORITY BLOC are not acting outside the ambit of the Constitution contrary to what Speaker Koffa maintains. Article 33 of the Constitution of Liberia reads thus:
“A Simple Majority of each House shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, but a lower number may adjourn from day to day and compel the attendance of absent members. Whenever the House of Representatives and the Senate shall meet in joint session, the presiding officer of the House of Representatives shall preside”.
Further, Article 33 is clear and succinct on the prerequisite for the conduct of business by the House of Representatives. And that prerequisite is a QUORUM consisting of a SIMPLE MAJORITY of the total number of Representatives which stands at 73.
Currently those Representatives referred to as the Majority Bloc are 43 in number. It goes without saying therefore that the “Majority Bloc is acting both legally and constitutionally to conduct the business of the House of Representatives.
More to that Article 33 states in clear and succinct terms that while a QUORUM consisting of a SIMPLE MAJORITY is required for the conduct of business, “a lower number may adjourn from day to day and compel the attendance of absent members”.
In this case the “lower number” refers only to those Representatives who formed part of the QUORUM and does not include Representative Koffa and his colleagues who did not form part of the quorum. They are the ones whose attendance can be compelled under Article 33.
Further to the above, Article 33 states also in clear and succinct terms that when both Houses meet in Joint Session, the presiding officer of the House of Representatives shall preside. As written, the crafters of the Constitution did provide room for such departures that currently exist. What do I mean?
In the case at bar, Speaker Koffa has been yet unable to conduct the business of the House because he has consistently failed to obtain the required QUORUM of a SIMPLE MAJORITY of members of the House clearly because MAJORITY MEMBERS of the House have refused to sit under his authority.
His predicament is compounded by the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant him a Writ of Prohibition to restrain MAJORITY MEMBERS of the House from conducting the business of that body.
He has even threatened to declare vacant legislative seats occupied by those opposed to him who have refused to sit under his authority. But the question is by stretch of authority does he have to declare vacancies in the Legislature?
Article 37 of the Constitution is clear on this issue and it reads thus:
” In the event of a vacancy in the Legislature caused by death, resignation, expulsion or otherwise, the presiding officer shall within 30 days notify the Elections Commission thereof. The Elections Commission shall not later than 90 days thereafter cause a by election to be held; provided that where such vacancy occurs within 90 days prior to the holding of general elections, the filling of the vacancy shall await the holding of such general elections”
The conditions under which a vacancy may be declared are clearly spelt out and it says the “PRESIDING OFFICER shall within 30 days notify the Elections Commission. The provision does not say the “Speaker” because he/she including the Deputy Speaker may be incapacitated and this is what I mean by Article 33 provides room for departures.
More to this, since his proposed declaration of vacancies is not within 90 days of general elections, it means that such vacancies will persist and remain as is until within 90 days of the general elections of 2029. So how is he Speaker Koffa going to conduct business given the lack of a quorum with over 40 legislative seats declared vacant assuming that he does have such power? What is he eating- Palmbutter?
As things stand, Speaker Koffa is incapacitated not by reasons of poor health, mental or otherwise. However, he is incapacitated because he is yet unable to attain the required quorum. In case of such incapacity the body constituting a quorum shall elect a presiding officer to proceed with the conduct of business.
And this is exactly what the MAJORITY BLOC is doing. This can explain why Justice in-Chambers Yamie Gbeissay declined to grant Koffa his much desired Writ of Prohibition.
Speaker Koffa has, however, refused to budge and has declared his intention to challenge Justice Gbeissay’s ruling with the argument that his colleagues are denying him due process because they have not acquired the required two-thirds Majority to impeach him.
But the problem is he is unable to muster the required quorum to convene the House of Representatives in session.
Moreover, to the best of publicly available information, the MAJORITY BLOC has not announced the commencement of Impeachment Proceedings against Koffa. All such suggestions and insinuations are but speculatory.
But granted argumentum the MAJORITY BLOC joins the MINORITY and convene under the authority of Speaker Koffa to accord him “Due Process”. His immediate task will be to formulate an agenda which will have to be approved by majority vote.
What if for example members of the MAJORITY BLOC desire a single agenda item which is a trial of Speaker Koffa on the charges which they have brought against him?
If the Agenda is tried and passed, it may require the setting up of a special Committee to investigate him as well as requiring him to recuse himself as presiding officer. If he refuses to comply, he will find himself in an untenable position.
In the review of the budget for example, the MAJORITY BLOC could trim off what they say are extra fat added to the budget by Speaker for the advancement of his personal interests.
Some members of the MAJORITY BLOC have for example cited the rejection by the Minister of Finance of a reimbursement request from Speaker Koffa, in an amount of a little over US$700.000 allegedly for fuel, supplies and vehicle repair as an example of what they refer to as budget padding.
The MAJORITY BLOC could go even further by reducing his allowances and removing from the payroll a list of individuals attached to his office in various capacities such as consultants, etc. one of whom is allegedly former District 8 Representative Acarous Gray
All this goes to say that Speaker Koffa is on the wrong side of history. No amount of stentorian boasts, display of bravado or the intervention of the ECOWAS Parliamentary delegation can help him.
Even an appeal to the full Bench of the Supreme Court will do him no good because the Court will not twist or bend the law to accommodate the whims and caprices of avaricious speculators.
Speaker Koffa as I have long since maintained, should learn from history. He should do the right thing and resign his post as Speaker. After all, he will still be a member of the House of Representatives and will still be eligible to receive his “Wah-Million” US$15,000 each month. So nothing spoil bah”
By John H.T. Stewart
