The House of Representatives is entangled in a leadership dispute that has exposed critical flaws in its governance framework. At the center of this controversy are Cllr. Jonathan Fonati Koffa and Rep. Richard Nagbe Koon, both of whom lay claim to the Speakership. The issue, which hinges on procedural errors and legal ambiguities, has left the Legislature in disarray and the public questioning its capacity to uphold the rule of law.
Activist Martin K. N. Kollie, currently pursuing a Master of Law (LLM), has dissected this controversy in a comprehensive analysis on Saturday, November 23, 2024. He highlights two primary missteps that have perpetuated the crisis: the rescinding of signatures on the resolution to remove Koffa and procedural irregularities in the election of Koon. According to Kollie, these errors have undermined the legislative process’s credibility, leaving Koffa as an “embattled Speaker” and Koon’s position equally tenuous.
Kollie anchors his analysis in the 1986 Constitution and the House’s Standing Rules, which provide a clear framework for removing a Speaker. Both legal instruments stipulate only two requirements: a resolution reflecting a cause of action and a two-thirds majority vote, equivalent to 49 representatives. “The 1986 Constitution provides only two requirements to remove the Speaker: 1) A resolution reflecting a cause of action; 2) A two-thirds majority, 49 Representatives. Due process is not required here,” Kollie notes.
He contrasts removal with impeachment, a judicial process that explicitly requires due process under Article 43 of the Constitution. Removal, as outlined in Article 49, is a political process. “Unlike Article 43, Article 49 is silent on ‘due process.’ The latter only provides two things/steps that should be done or taken for a Speaker to be removed: A resolution showing cause for removal and a two-thirds majority (signatures). That’s all you need,” Kollie writes.
Despite this clarity, Kollie points out that the legitimacy of the removal resolution remains unverified. He states, “I haven’t [seen a copy of the resolution]. Furthermore, there are still controversies surrounding some lawmakers rescinding their signatures.” These rescindments, if confirmed, could invalidate the resolution and cast further doubt on the legitimacy of Koon’s Speakership.
Kollie identifies another significant flaw in the process: the election of Koon violated the House’s Standing Rules. Rule 19.3 mandates secret ballot elections, but the majority bloc opted for a “white ballot” process instead. “The law didn’t say ‘White Ballot.’ This is a procedural error, and this error can be fixed if the majority bloc truly has 50 lawmakers/signatures as they’ve claimed,” Kollie asserts.
Though not required for removal, the principle of due process still demands impartiality in decision-making. Kollie questions how either bloc can claim neutrality in this matter. “How can the anti-Koffa bloc be the one to grant ‘due process’ in this case when they are the accused or when they are a party to this conflict? How can the pro-Koffa bloc even be asking the anti-Koffa bloc for ‘due process’ when the latter is a party to this conflict?” he asks. Kollie underscores that removal is inherently a political process driven by resolutions and numbers rather than a judicial one.
The judiciary’s role in this crisis is limited, as Kollie observes, citing precedents set in the cases of former Speaker Alex Tyler and Edwin Snowe. The Supreme Court has consistently refrained from intervening in legislative removal processes, describing them as political matters. “The Court described the removal process as ‘political.’ Therefore, it could not interfere,” Kollie explains. This stance reflects the principle of separation of powers, which prevents the judiciary from dictating the internal affairs of the Legislature.
Kollie stresses that the lack of numerical support leaves Koffa in an untenable position. “The embattled Speaker no longer has quorum or enjoys the confidence of the majority to function for more than a month now,” he writes. Legislative decisions require a quorum, and Koffa’s inability to secure the necessary support renders him ineffective.
Without the backing of at least 37 representatives, Koffa is effectively a lame-duck leader. “At the moment, Koffa is a lame-duck Speaker. He has the title but no power,” Kollie states. This reality underscores the importance of numerical strength in legislative politics, where majority support determines leadership and decision-making authority.
The crisis, however, is not limited to Koffa’s removal or Koon’s election. Kollie points to deeper structural issues within Liberia’s governance framework. “Many provisions in the Constitution and the Standing Rule are ambiguous or vague. They are not clear and precise. Hence, the urgency for constitutional revision cannot be overstated,” he writes. These ambiguities have created loopholes that exacerbate political conflicts and hinder effective governance.
Kollie also critiques the hasty manner in which the majority bloc conducted Koon’s election. The law allows for up to 60 days to elect a new Speaker following a vacancy, yet the process was rushed, leaving little opportunity for other interested lawmakers to participate. This haste, coupled with procedural lapses, undermines the legitimacy of the election and the authority of the Legislature.
The implications of this crisis extend beyond the House of Representatives. It highlights the fragility of Liberia’s democratic institutions and the urgent need for reform. Kollie calls for a comprehensive review of the Constitution and legislative rules to address these weaknesses and prevent future disputes.
The controversy also raises broader questions about leadership and accountability in Liberia. As Kollie notes, “Democracy is and will always be about the WILL of the majority no matter what.” Leadership in a democratic system requires adherence to legal and procedural norms and the confidence and support of the majority.
Koffa’s refusal to step aside despite losing majority support sets a troubling precedent. In democratic systems worldwide, leaders who lose the confidence of their constituents or colleagues typically resign to preserve the integrity of the institution. Kollie argues that Koffa should do the same to restore stability and credibility to the Legislature.
As Kollie aptly concludes, “The law is the law.” Only by respecting legal and procedural norms can the Legislature rebuild its credibility and the trust of the Liberian people.
By Socrates Smythe Saywon
