Monrovia, Liberia – In a growing wave of dissent, the Montserrado Bar Association has publicly distanced itself from a recent statement issued by the Liberian National Bar Association (LNBA), which sharply criticized a Supreme Court ruling related to the House of Representatives leadership dispute.
The Montserrado Bar, the oldest and largest county bar association in Liberia and a key pillar of the nation’s legal framework, has expressed its disapproval of the LNBA’s April 28 press statement, calling it unilateral and unauthorized.
The controversial statement by LNBA President Cllr. Bornor M. Varmah had condemned the Supreme Court’s April 23 ruling in favor of Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, which declared actions taken by a “Majority Bloc” of lawmakers—excluding the Speaker—as unconstitutional. The LNBA warned that the ruling amounted to judicial overreach, risked eroding the separation of powers, and could destabilize the country’s governance, including the legal standing of the 2025 National Budget passed during the disputed sessions.
However, the Montserrado Bar Association has taken a firm stand against what it views as an overstep by the LNBA leadership.
In a statement issued by its Board and Executive Committee, the Montserrado Bar said it was neither consulted nor informed before the LNBA President made the public pronouncement. Speaking on behalf of the Association, Cllr. Pearl Bull criticized the process, stating:
“The Board of Advisors believes that the statement was released without the knowledge, information, or invitation to consult prior to its issuance.”
Cllr. Bull further pointed to constitutional provisions within the LNBA that require the Executive Council—comprising presidents of all fifteen county bar associations—to be consulted on major policy positions.
“The LNBA constitution is clear: decisions of national importance must be deliberated and agreed upon by the Executive Council,” she said.
“This did not happen. Therefore, we must respectfully advise that such statements, going forward, must be subject to full consultation and agreement.”
The Montserrado Bar’s rebuttal underscores growing internal tensions within the Liberian legal community over how the Bar Association engages with national political and judicial matters. The Association emphasized that while it maintains respect for the LNBA’s leadership, it cannot support actions that bypass established governance protocols.
The Supreme Court’s ruling itself came in response to an Amended Bill of Information filed by Speaker Koffa and reaffirmed an earlier December 2024 decision. The Court concluded that legislative sessions held without the Speaker’s participation—while he was present and available—violated constitutional norms. The ruling drew fire from the LNBA, which accused the Court of using the Bill of Information to issue what it described as a “second judgment,” thereby exceeding its mandate.
Despite the gravity of the LNBA’s concerns, the backlash from its own ranks—most notably the Montserrado Bar Association—raises questions about the unity and internal coherence of the national legal body.
As legal stakeholders continue to speak out, the LNBA’s stance appears increasingly isolated. Observers note that the lack of institutional consensus may weaken the Bar’s credibility in national discourse and dampen its influence in efforts to preserve constitutional balance.
Still, the broader constitutional debate ignited by the Court’s ruling continues to resonate. Legal experts and civil society actors remain divided over the judiciary’s role in settling what many consider inherently political disputes.
The Montserrado Bar’s statement signals a critical moment of reckoning within Liberia’s legal community—one that may redefine the boundaries of legal advocacy, internal governance, and national engagement by professional bodies.
