MONROVIA – Liberia’s ongoing debate over institutional accountability has entered a new phase following tensions between the Ministry of Justice and the Senate over an audit-related legal action. The controversy, which centers on the Senate’s decision to cite the Minister of Justice after the Ministry sought court subpoenas tied to a General Auditing Commission inquiry, has sparked wider constitutional reflections among legal scholars. One of the most pointed contributions comes from Assistant Professor of Law Tiawan Saye Gongloe, who argues that the episode raises deeper questions about the limits of legislative authority in Liberia’s constitutional system. In a detailed commentary, Gongloe contends that while legislative oversight is legitimate, the Constitution does not place the Senate—or any branch of government—above the law. THE ANALYST reports.
A Liberian legal scholar has raised significant constitutional concerns regarding the Senate’s recent decision to cite the Minister of Justice following a legal application connected to a proposed audit of the Legislature.
In a commentary examining the constitutional implications of the episode, Assistant Professor of Law Tiawan Saye Gongloe argued that the Constitution of Liberia does not place any branch of government above the law, including the Legislature.
“The Constitution of the Republic of Liberia does not place any branch of government above the law,” Gongloe wrote. “The Executive is not above the law. The Judiciary is not above the law. The Legislature is not above the law. Not even the President of the Republic is above the law.”
Gongloe’s commentary follows recent developments in which the Minister of Justice was cited by the Senate after the Ministry applied to the court seeking subpoenas intended to compel the production of documents requested by the General Auditing Commission (GAC) for a comprehensive audit of the Senate.
According to the law professor, the Senate’s decision to cite the Justice Minister after the legal application had already been withdrawn raises serious institutional and constitutional questions.
“These concerns are not personal or political,” he stated. “They are institutional and constitutional.”
The General Auditing Commission, Gongloe emphasized, is legally mandated to audit public institutions across the country, including the Legislature.
Public funds, he argued, are not the property of any particular institution but resources held in trust for the Liberian people.
“Transparency is therefore not discretionary,” he noted. “It is a legal obligation.”
Gongloe further explained that disputes regarding document production or compliance with audit requirements should properly be resolved through the Judiciary.
“The Ministry of Justice approached the court. That was the correct constitutional avenue,” he wrote.
Once the application was withdrawn, he said, the matter effectively ceased to exist as a live legal controversy.
“Legally, it became moot,” he explained.
In that context, Gongloe suggested that the Senate’s decision to cite the Minister of Justice afterward could risk creating the perception of institutional retaliation rather than legitimate legislative oversight.
He noted that the Legislature has historically exercised its contempt powers, including the imprisonment of public officials, making careful adherence to constitutional limits essential.
“The Ministry of Justice did no wrong to the Senate,” Gongloe stated. “Therefore, the Senate was owed no apology.”
Throughout the commentary, Gongloe repeatedly emphasized what he described as a fundamental constitutional principle.
“The Senate is not above the law,” he wrote.
The legal scholar argued that Liberia’s past political instability and delayed development have often been linked to disregard for constitutional principles and the rule of law.
“Whenever institutions assert authority in ways that undermine established legal processes, constitutional alarm is justified,” he wrote.
“Democracy survives not on demonstrations of power but on disciplined adherence to constitutional boundaries.”
Gongloe also drew on his own experiences in public service to illustrate the importance of maintaining constitutional limits within government.
During his tenure as Solicitor General, he recalled that two sitting senators were indicted—one for a first-degree felony and another for a second-degree felony.
He said he was summoned before the Senate and questioned for nearly two hours about why the Ministry of Justice would indict sitting senators.
“My response was consistent: the Constitution does not place Senators above the law,” he recounted.
“If no Senator had been indicted in the past, perhaps in the past all Senators were law-abiding.”
One of the cases involved a senator accused of aggravated assault against his niece.
According to Gongloe, during questioning a senator asked why a senator should be indicted for assaulting “his own niece.”
Gongloe said he responded by explaining that criminal law protects life and bodily integrity as matters of public concern rather than private discretion.
He added that even attempted suicide, if unsuccessful, may constitute a criminal offense because the state has a constitutional obligation to protect life.
“Life is not a private possession exempt from public law,” he stated.
Following that exchange, he said, he was discharged from the hearing.
Gongloe also recounted a separate constitutional dispute during his tenure as Minister of Labor.
He explained that he was once cited by the Speaker of the House of Representatives concerning Regulation No. 17, which increased work permit fees for foreign workers.
Upon appearing before the Speaker, Gongloe said he found foreign entrepreneurs present who objected to the regulation.
He informed the Speaker that if the businessmen believed their rights had been violated, the appropriate forum for resolving the matter was the Judiciary rather than the Legislature.
Subsequently, the House passed a resolution expressing a vote of no confidence in him and transmitted it to then President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.
According to Gongloe, President Sirleaf responded by stating that her Minister had violated no law and that she retained confidence in him.
“That concluded the matter,” he said.
The law professor argued that such experiences illustrate the delicate balance required when public officials respond to legislative summonses.
While officials must respect legislative oversight, he said, they must also remain guided by constitutional obligations.
“Compliance does not require surrender of constitutional judgment,” Gongloe wrote.
“Legislative contempt powers do not override constitutional supremacy.”
To reinforce his argument, Gongloe cited a landmark decision of the Supreme Court in Morlu II v. House of the Senate (2008).
In that case, Morlu filed a petition for prohibition after the Senate held him in contempt for issuing a press statement the Legislature believed misinformed the international community.
The Supreme Court ruled against the Senate, determining that even if Morlu had provided misinformation, the act did not obstruct legislative functions or impede Senate members in carrying out their duties.
The ruling clarified that legislative contempt authority exists primarily to protect the integrity of legislative proceedings—not to shield lawmakers from criticism or scrutiny.
“The Legislature’s contempt authority is not unlimited,” Gongloe emphasized. “It is bounded by constitutional constraints and subject to judicial review.”
He further argued that the placement of the Legislature as the first branch mentioned in Liberia’s Constitution does not confer superiority over the other branches of government.
Instead, he said, it simply reflects structural organization rather than hierarchical authority.
“Separation of powers does not establish supremacy of one branch over another,” he wrote. “It establishes coordinated accountability under constitutional limits.”
Gongloe explained that in Liberia’s constitutional framework, each branch of government plays a role in correcting potential abuses by the others.
“If the Executive exceeds its authority, the courts provide correction,” he wrote.
“If the Legislature exceeds its authority, the courts provide correction. If the Judiciary errs, appellate review provides correction.”
He stressed that constitutional democracy functions only when institutions respect the limits of their authority.
“Institutional strength does not lie in demonstrations of power but in disciplined adherence to constitutional boundaries,” he wrote.
Displays of authority that appear to circumvent established legal processes, he warned, risk undermining public trust in democratic governance.
Gongloe concluded his commentary with a reaffirmation of what he described as the core principle underlying Liberia’s constitutional system.
“No House of the Legislature is above the law,” he wrote.
“No Minister is above the law. No citizen is above the law. Not even the President of the Republic is above the law.”
“The Senate is not above the law,” he declared.