Monrovia – The Supreme Court of Liberia has strongly criticized the Majority Bloc of the House of Representatives for failing to adhere to proper legislative procedures in their ongoing efforts to remove Speaker J. Fonati Koffa. In a hearing on Wednesday, March 26, 2025, the Court emphasized that any attempt to unseat the Speaker must comply with constitutional guidelines, including the requirement for a legitimate House session with the backing of at least 49 votes.
During deliberations on the Bill of Information filed by Speaker Koffa’s legal team, the Justices made it clear that at no point in their prior rulings had they referred to Koffa as the “legitimate Speaker.” Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene Gyapay Yuoh and her colleagues expressed concern over the chaos unfolding on Capitol Hill, referencing an arson attack at the House of Representatives and recent confrontations, including disputes over parking spaces, as consequences of the ongoing impasse.
Justice Yussif D. Kaba warned that the actions of the Majority Bloc, particularly the decision to hold a parallel legislative session, were unconstitutional and could further destabilize the country’s governance structure. The Court had previously ruled that any legislative action, including the removal of a Speaker, must align with Articles 33 and 49 of the 1986 Constitution. Despite this ruling, both factions of the House continue to operate separately—Speaker Koffa presiding over the Minority Bloc while Representative Richard Koon leads the Majority Bloc.
During the hearing, Cllr. Arthur Johnson, one of the lead lawyers for the Majority Bloc, petitioned the Court to enforce its December 6, 2024 ruling on the political dispute. However, the Justices pressed him to clarify the alleged violation of the Court’s mandate, a question he struggled to answer definitively.
The Court explained that a Bill of Information is only valid if it highlights a direct violation or interference with a Supreme Court ruling. Justice Kaba further questioned Cllr. Johnson on the legal basis for the Supreme Court enforcing its own ruling, to which he conceded that enforcement ultimately falls under the authority of the Executive Branch. Cllr. Johnson argued that while enforcement is an executive function, there have been instances where the Supreme Court’s opinions were ignored, leading parties to seek redress through a Bill of Information.
The Minority Bloc’s legal team urged the Court to reaffirm its December 6 decision, arguing that the Majority Bloc had deliberately disregarded the ruling and continued its unconstitutional actions. However, the Justices repeatedly asked which specific ruling had been violated, indicating skepticism toward the Majority Bloc’s claims.
Chief Justice Yuoh clarified that while the Supreme Court is responsible for interpreting the law, it does not have the authority to compel members of the House to attend sessions. Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay echoed this sentiment, stating that the Court cannot dictate legislative actions but must ensure they align with constitutional provisions.
Cllr. Varney Sherman, representing the Majority Bloc, defended the group’s decision to convene a session without Speaker Koffa, arguing that a simple majority of lawmakers constitutes a quorum under Article 33 of the Constitution. The Court swiftly rejected this argument, reaffirming that legislative proceedings must be presided over by a duly elected Speaker or, in their absence, the Deputy Speaker.
Chief Justice Yuoh questioned why the Majority Bloc would hold a parallel session while Speaker Koffa remains in office. Justice Jamestta Howard Wolokollie cautioned that continued constitutional violations could set a dangerous precedent for future legislative actions, warning that ignoring the rules could lead to further instability.
Legal experts suggest that the Court’s stern rebuke of Cllr. Sherman indicates that the Majority Bloc, led by Representative Koon, failed to comply with the December 2024 ruling, which had declared their attempt to remove Speaker Koffa unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has reserved its ruling on the Bill of Information for a later date.
