In the ongoing controversy surrounding the removal of former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. J. Fonati Koffa, a pointed defense of the separation of powers doctrine and the non-justiciable political question was made by Worlea-Saywah Dunah in a recent commentary. The remarks came after widespread public discussions and media coverage questioning the legitimacy of Koffa’s removal and the role of the judiciary in the matter.
Dunah argues that, despite the political heat and media speculation, the constitution clearly supports the Plenary’s right to act independently and constitutionally without judicial interference. He stresses that Koffa’s removal was a direct result of his failure to perform his duties and respond to internal crises within the legislature, including a violent disruption of the House’s sessions in October 2024. According to Dunah, Koffa’s failure to preside over the session during this time or order an investigation into the violence left the House vulnerable to actions that led to his removal.
The issue at hand, Dunah explains, goes beyond individual behavior to a broader constitutional principle: the judiciary cannot interfere with the legislature’s internal matters, particularly in the case of the removal of leadership. This is in line with the principle of separation of powers, which ensures that the three branches of government, the executive, legislature, and judiciary, remain independent of one another. Dunah reinforces that the issue is not justiciable, meaning the courts cannot decide on it because it is a political matter, one that falls under the legislature’s authority.
Dunah highlights that the constitution does not require the Speaker to be present for the Plenary to operate, nor does it grant the judiciary power over such matters. He draws comparisons to the United States, citing the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, which was a political decision made by Congress, not the courts. Just as Clinton did not challenge the impeachment in court, Koffa’s situation should be treated within the political arena of the legislature, not the judicial system.
Furthermore, Dunah asserts that the constitution empowers the legislature to regulate its own affairs, including the election and removal of its officers. He stresses that the political house acted within its rights, citing Koffa’s failure to take responsibility for the disruption and violence as a key factor leading to his removal. Dunah also criticizes Koffa for not confronting the committee that investigated him or challenging the committee’s authority, a move that could have changed the outcome.
The commentary concludes with a clear statement: the case of Koffa’s removal is a political matter that has been settled by the legislature, and the judiciary should not attempt to undermine the decisions of the Plenary. According to Dunah, the decision to remove Koffa was legally and constitutionally sound, and any challenge to it would be futile.
