Outrage over Kolubah Expulsion – As Critics Decry “Democratic Backsliding”

MONROVIA – Liberia’s fragile democratic credentials are facing renewed scrutiny following the controversial expulsion of Montserrado County District #10 Representative Yekeh Y. Kolubah from the 55th National Legislature, a move that has ignited fierce backlash from civil society actors and leading political figures across the country.

The decision, widely perceived as punitive and politically motivated, has drawn sharp condemnations from prominent voices who warn that the action signals a dangerous erosion of democratic norms and legislative independence in Liberia.

The controversy is rooted in a dramatic sequence of events that began when Kolubah made a startling public assertion regarding the long-disputed border territory, declaring that the land in question rightfully belongs to Guinea. His remarks, delivered in a politically charged atmosphere, quickly ignited outrage among his colleagues and segments of the public, who accused him of making statements tantamount to treason. Critics within the legislature argued that such a position directly contradicts the oath he swore to defend the Constitution and territorial integrity of Liberia, thereby setting the stage for the disciplinary actions that ultimately culminated in his expulsion.

The tensions further escalated during the legislative proceedings when lawyers representing Kolubah, including Kabineh Ja’neh, a former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, who was himself impeached, reportedly staged a dramatic walkout from the hearing. The defense team protested what they described as a fundamentally flawed and biased process, alleging that they were denied the opportunity to speak or challenge the manner and form in which the proceedings were being conducted. Their withdrawal underscored growing concerns among legal observers that due process was not adequately observed, further fueling criticism that the expulsion was predetermined and procedurally unjust.

Among the most vocal critics is Alexander Cummings, who described the expulsion as “a direct assault on representative democracy and the will of the people.” Cummings argued that silencing an elected lawmaker for dissent undermines the very foundation of Liberia’s governance system, which is rooted in pluralism and free expression.

Expanding on his criticism in a strongly worded statement, Alexander Cummings denounced what he termed blatant double standards, declaring, “Our commitment to free speech is not tested by the words we like, but rather it is tested by the words that unsettle us. That is the true measure of tolerance and free speech.”He acknowledged disagreements with Kolubah’s rhetoric but insisted that such differences cannot justify punitive action that undermines constitutional freedoms.

Cummings further alleged that the justification provided by the House does not withstand scrutiny, arguing, “The House of Representatives claim to be expelling Yekeh for statements made about the border, but we all know that they are doing this because of Yekeh’s fierce opposition to the government he helped bring to power.”He warned against what he described as weaponizing a single controversial statement, adding that authorities were attempting to “tie it with a ribbon of treason to get rid of a voice we do not like.”

He also pointed to what he sees as glaring political hypocrisy, noting that Kolubah’s confrontational style was once tolerated under a previous administration but is now being punished. “Today, under the Unity Party led government, his remarks are suddenly grounds for expulsion. That is the height of hypocrisy,” Cummings asserted, emphasizing that “expelling him is NOT JUSTIFIED” and cautioning that such actions send a dangerous message that free speech is conditional and selectively enforced. He concluded with a broader warning that the move would burden taxpayers and do little to address pressing national issues, insisting that “this in no way benefits the people… Liberians deserve better.”

Echoing similar concerns, renowned human rights advocate Tiawon Saye Gongloe condemned the action as unconstitutional and a “blatant misuse of legislative power.” Gongloe warned that such decisions set a troubling precedent where political disagreement is met not with debate, but with repression.

“This is not just about Representative Kolubah,” Gongloe asserted. “It is about the systematic dismantling of democratic safeguards that protect every Liberian citizen.”

CMC Political leader Musa Hassan Bility also weighed in, calling the expulsion “a desecration of Liberia’s fledgling democracy.” He stressed that the legislature, as a symbol of the people’s voice, must remain a space for diverse opinions rather than a tool for political conformity.

Similarly, Nimba County Representative, Taa Wongbe criticized the move as a betrayal of the aspirations of ordinary Liberians, many of whom continue to struggle for inclusion and representation in national decision-making. Wongbe emphasized that the expulsion sends a chilling message to opposition voices and weakens public confidence in democratic institutions.

Civil society organizations have joined the chorus of condemnation, describing the decision as a “deep disappointment” and a regression from the democratic gains achieved since the end of Liberia’s civil conflict. Many argue that the action contradicts the expectations of citizens who voted for transparency, accountability, and respect for the rule of law.

In a related reaction, Senator Amara Konneh added a historical and political dimension to the controversy, questioning what he described as glaring inconsistency in the posture of the current ruling establishment. Reflecting on Kolubah’s role during the administration of former President George Weah, Konneh emphasized the lawmaker’s past as a bold voice of dissent, stating, “Let’s remember the significance of Rep. Kolubah’s voice during the Weah Administration, when he stood up against the alleged corruption, bad governance, and human rights abuses on the opposition’s behalf.”

Konneh further underscored what he views as political hypocrisy, noting that those now in power once embraced Kolubah’s criticisms when it suited their political interests. “The now-ruling party led the opposition then and had no problem hailing him as a dissenting voice,” he said, before posing a pointed question that has since resonated widely across political circles: “Why, now, do they have a problem with that same criticism?” His remarks have amplified concerns that the expulsion reflects a broader intolerance for accountability and dissent within the current political order.

In a series of statements and public engagements, advocacy groups have called on Liberians to remain vigilant and actively resist what they characterize as creeping authoritarianism. They warn that failure to challenge such actions could embolden further restrictions on political freedoms.

“The Liberian people must rise to defend their democracy,” one civil society coalition declared. “Silence in the face of injustice only strengthens those who seek to undermine our collective future.”

The opposition-aligned Congress for Democratic Change (CDC) has issued a fiery statement, accusing the government of undermining democracy and alleging financial inducements behind the expulsion.

“We denounce… the deceitful trajectory of President Boakai… This action risks undermining national stability.”

The CDC went further, announcing the expulsion of several of its own lawmakers accused of supporting Kolubah’s removal.

Similarly, the advocacy group Solidarity and Trust for a New Day (STAND) condemned the move as “a ruthless witch-hunt and a direct assault on freedom of speech… a warning to all critical voices.”

Voices from the Streets: Mixed Public Sentiment

Beyond political elites, ordinary Liberians are also deeply divided; although from the initial reception it might have seemed that Kolubah’s received a hero’s welcome after this heartbreaking expulsion. As marketers and ordinary citizens lined the streets to welcome him as he marched through the principal streets of Monrovia, market woman threw down their wrappers to give him a traditional red carpet welcome.

At Duala Market, 52-year-old trader Martha Johnson expressed frustration. “We elected him to speak for us. If they remove him like this, then what power do we have?”

But not all agree.

A commercial motorcyclist in Red Light, who identified himself only as Abu, supported the decision. “Yekeh talks too much sometimes. If you are a lawmaker, you must respect the country. He crossed the line.”

A university student on Capitol Hill captured the dilemma facing many. “I don’t always agree with him, but at least he speaks boldly. If they can remove him, they can silence anyone.”

A Defining Moment for Liberia’s Democracy

At the heart of the controversy lies a fundamental question: Was Kolubah punished for misconduct or for dissent?

Supporters of the expulsion argue that the Legislature acted within its constitutional mandate to preserve institutional integrity. Critics, however, warn that the move risks setting a dangerous precedent where political disagreement is treated as a punishable offense.

With the Supreme Court now seized of the matter, the final outcome may redefine the balance of power between Liberia’s branches of government.

As the nation awaits the April 20 conference, one thing is clear: the fallout from Kolubah’s expulsion has transcended a single lawmaker—it has become a test case for Liberia’s democracy, rule of law, and tolerance for dissent.

The controversy surrounding Kolubah’s expulsion has also reignited broader debates about the independence of the legislature and the balance of power within government. Critics argue that the move reflects an increasing intolerance for dissent and a consolidation of authority that threatens democratic governance.

Adding another layer of complexity and controversy to the unfolding crisis are claims of apparent contradictions in the government’s own position regarding the disputed border territory referenced by Representative Kolubah prior to his expulsion. Observers note that the Government of Liberia has, in recent times, taken actions that implicitly acknowledge the sensitivity—and contested nature—of the land in question.

Notably, Guinea continues to lay claim to the territory, a reality that has fueled long-standing diplomatic and local tensions. In what critics describe as a conflicting posture, Liberian authorities have reportedly shut down companies operating within the disputed area, citing concerns tied to the unresolved boundary status.

For many analysts and opposition figures, such actions appear to reinforce the very argument advanced by Kolubah—that the ownership of the land remains in dispute and may, in fact, favor Guinea’s claim. This has led to accusations that the government is penalizing a lawmaker for articulating a position that its own conduct seems to substantiate.

“This is the height of contradiction,” one political commentator noted. “You cannot silence a representative for raising an issue that your own policies and actions appear to validate.”

The development has intensified criticism that the expulsion was less about procedural discipline and more about suppressing uncomfortable truths, further deepening public skepticism about the government’s commitment to transparency and accountability.

As tensions mount, political analysts caution that the government’s handling of the situation could have far-reaching implications for Liberia’s international image and internal stability. With public trust already fragile, the coming days are expected to test the resilience of Liberia’s democratic institutions.

For many observers, the expulsion is more than a disciplinary measure—it is a defining moment that will shape the trajectory of Liberia’s democracy. Whether it galvanizes reform or deepens division remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the debate over the soul of Liberia’s democracy has been forcefully reignited.