The Supreme Court of Liberia has reserved its ruling in the contentious case concerning the removal of Speaker J. Fonati Koffa.
Both sides presented robust arguments on the constitutionality of the Speaker’s removal, leaving the Court to determine which side’s case merits a favorable judgment.
The case stems from a petition filed by Speaker Koffa, challenging the legality of legislative actions taken by members of the Majority Bloc. The Supreme Court issued a writ of prohibition against the Majority Bloc, halting any further proceedings related to the Speaker’s removal until a final decision is rendered.
As part of the proceedings, the Court directed all parties involved, including Justice Minister to provide their legal perspectives on the matter. Responses were filed on Tuesday, and arguments were heard before the Full Bench of the Supreme Court on today.
The writ, signed by Cllr. Sam Mamulu, Clerk of the Supreme Court, underscored the Court’s constitutional duty to adjudicate disputes of this nature. It mandated the lawmakers involved and the Justice Minister to appear before the Court to address the constitutional issues raised by Speaker Koffa’s legal team.
Embattled Koffa is seeking a writ of mandamus, requesting the court to declare the action unconstitutional and to annul the Majority Bloc’s control over the 2025 national budget.
During a hearing on Wednesday, November 27, 2024, the Majority Bloc’s legal representative, Cllr. Varney Sherman, argued that the court should refrain from intervening in legislative matters, as these are inherently political and do not breach any constitutional provisions.
Cllr. Sherman emphasized that the House of Representatives has the constitutional authority to remove its Speaker, which, according to him, was done in compliance with due process.
The Majority Bloc, though their legal counsel explained that a letter was sent to Speaker Koffa on October 21, 2024, inviting him to a session with the bloc for due process, but the speaker refused to attend.
They also mentioned that a committee was formed to address complaints against Koffa, and proper citations were served, further affirming that the process was legitimate.
On the other hand, Koffa’s legal representative, Cllr. Author T. Johnson, argued that the removal violated both the Constitution and the House’s standing rules.
Johnson contended that the Majority Bloc’s actions were unconstitutional, as they took decisions without the legitimate speaker presiding, which, according to them, rendered the actions illegal.
Cllr. Johnson cited Article 33 of the 1986 Constitution, which mandates that a quorum for the transaction of business requires the Speaker to preside.
Cllr. Johnson further requested the Supreme Court to declare the Majority Bloc’s actions unconstitutional, asserting that failure to do so would set a dangerous precedent where any majority could disregard constitutional rules to remove elected leaders.
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Justice, which was invited to offer its legal opinion, urged the court to dismiss the case.
The Justice Minister serves as the Dean of the Supreme Court, as such its decision matters.
The Ministry, not a party to the case, argued that there was no constitutional violation in the actions of the Majority Bloc.
According to the Ministry, the matter at hand does not involve a constitutional breach, referencing sections 9.6 of the Civil Procedure Law and 2.2 of the Executive Law.
The Supreme Court has yet to announce its decision, and the legal community is closely watching the outcome, as it could have significant implications for the legislative process and the balance of power within the government.
Many legal pundits have weighed in on the political impasse on Capitol with many holding different views.
The situation has caused a legislative impasse, with the House of Representatives effectively at a standstill pending the Court’s ruling. The decision is expected to clarify the constitutionality of the actions taken by the Majority Bloc and set a precedent for future disputes within Liberia’s legislative framework.
As the nation awaits the Court’s verdict, legal analysts and political observers are divided over the possible outcomes.
