MONROVIA – What appears to be looming cataclysmic disappointment and final doom for ‘regime speaker’ Richard Koon and his so-called majority bloc is seething on the horizon, as far as hearing of the bill of information submitted to the High Court by embattled speaker Jonathan Fonati Koffa is concerned. Analyses and responses, though not the ruling, proffered by nearly all justices of the Court sounded unanimous in the view that the sittings and operations of the Koon-led majority bloc are afoul with the laws of the land – an apparent devastating blow in wait. The Analyst reports.
The Supreme Court of Liberia held its first hearing Wednesday into the Bill of Information filed recently by informant Cllr. J. Fonati Koffa, embattled Speaker of the House of Representatives and members of his bloc, against Majority Leader Richard Koon and his “Majority Bloc” whose counsels faced an uphill battle convincing the Supreme Court Justices on the rationale for which their clients installed a speaker in total disregard of the constitution.
By and large, the justices of the Supreme Court had the respondents’ counsels against the wall as they were grilled to the point where there are widespread speculations that the final ruling might not go their way.
During one of the simmering back-and-forth exchanges between the self-proclaimed Majority Bloc’s lead counsel Varney Sherman and Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene G. Yuoh, tempers nearly flared as the Chief Justice reminded Cllr. Sherman, that his clients had no right under the constitution to install a speaker or conduct sessions with the legitimate speaker Fonati Koffa presiding in line with Article 33 of the Constitution.
“We said here that Article 33 vis-a-vis 49 were the issues of both parties. So, we said, yes, we see you with your numbers, but this is the law as regards Article 33. You are in the minority, the presiding office that is designated as the speaker, you are in the minority. But the law empowers you or gives you the authority to compel absent members to come. Not the majority. They say where you lack a quorum, you can compel absent members to come to form a quorum, not majority. Now, you’re telling us that this ‘majority’ tried to call the speaker, which is ultra vires, to come to a meeting on the other side.
“And we have said clearly in the interpretation of Article 33 that the only wrong thing here is that you are the speaker, but you are in the minority. To compel, you don’t have the statute. So, does that give the right to the absent members to go and form themselves into a majority bloc?” Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene G. Yuoh queried Cllr. Sherman exasperatingly, to which he replied half-heartedly: “We are a majority bloc because we are more than 43.”
That answer peeved the Chief Justice to the point where she openly rebuked Cllr. Sherman. “You can even increase it to 100. We are saying you can be 1,000, but at the time of that petition we were clear that in the instant case, the legislature not having a living statute to ensure or apply to Article 33 at that time, there was a presiding officer, there was a speaker. So, the court cannot do for the Legislature what they cannot do for themselves. This is what we said,” Chief Justice Yuoh responded.
Earlier in his argument, Cllr. Sherman fought to rationalize that the informants’ Bill of Information was moot and did not state anything contrary from the SC December 2024 ruling.
“It is hereby adjudged that the Supreme Court, pursuant to Article 66 of the Constitution shall be the final arbiter of constitutional issues and shall exercise final appellate jurisdiction in all cases whether emanating from the court of records, administrative agencies, autonomous agencies or any authority both as to law and the fact. Hence the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to decide constitutional issues arising out of internal dissension among the members of the Legislature as in the present case.
“That it is law in vogue that the constitution must be interpreted in light of the entire document rather than a sequestered pronouncement because every provision is of equal importance. And even where there are apparent discrepancies between different provisions, the court should harmonize them if possible.”
He continued: “That this court’s interpretation of Article 33 of the Constitution of 1986, is that whether a simple majority is sitting or a lower number, in both cases a presiding officer defining Article 49 of the Constitution is the Speaker, and in his or her absence, the deputy speaker. That in the event where the speaker is presiding over the minority, the Constitution is devoid of the mechanism for how the minority is to be compel the attendance of absent members; and the Legislature has promulgated no enabling statutes or standing rules setting forth the process for compelling absentee members to attend sessions as envisioned under Article 33 of the Constitution. And, under these circumstances, the Supreme Court cannot do for the Legislature what is within its purview to do, for to do so will be a violation of the constitutional mandate of the separation of powers.
“Wherefore, and in view of the foregoing, any sitting or actions by members of the Legislature not in conformity with Article 33 and 49 of the Constitution are ultra vires. This is what you adjudged. Now informants have not for one moment said that there was convening of the House of representatives without a simple majority. Nowhere in their Bill of Information – that’s article 33 of the Constitution. For me, here is what it says. A simple majority of each house shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Nowhere in their Bill of Information have they said that our respondents sat and they were less than 37. The Bill of Information is alleging facts, to cause Your Honor to say you have violated our judgment or our mandate,” Cllr. Sherman said.
But Chief Justice Yuoh was quick to bring him to a point for him to provide more clarity to his statement.
“Please clarify this for me. You said nowhere has the informant informed this court by an iota of evidence that they had a sitting in which they asked the other people to join them, and the other people refused. Is that what I am getting?”
Cll. Sherman: No. I said nowhere did they say that when the respondents sat, presided over by the deputy speaker that they didn’t have the simple majority requirement under the constitution. That’s what I said.
CJ Youh: Was the Speaker here when they sat?
Cllr. Sherman: Yes, Your Honour.
CJ Youh: I am talking about the informant J. Fonati Koffa and certain members of the House of Representatives.
Cllr. Sherman: Yes, You Honor.
CJ Youh: Were they part of that sitting?
Cllr. Sherman: No. They chose not to go.
CJ Youh: Is he the one to call them to a meeting?
Cllr. Sherman: No. Not necessarily. From my personal experience, the Constitution says who is the presiding officer of the Liberian Senate? The Vice President. But 99.99% of the time, it is the Pro Tempore that presides. Because when the Vice President is not president, the President Pro Tempore presides. So, when the majority has seated itself, the speaker must go there and preside. If you are not there and the deputy speaker is there, the deputy speaker has the obligation to preside n the absence of the speaker, just like the president pro tempore normally presides in the absence of the president of the Senate.
Justice Jamesetta Howard Wolokolie would also remind the respondents’ counsels J. Fonati Koffa still remains the duly elected Speaker of the House of Representatives.
“Our rules are important to avoid chaos. The Constitution gives lawmakers the authority to elect and remove a Speaker, but they must follow the proper procedure,” Justice Wolokolie said.
In a similar manner, Justice Yusuf Kaba provided a caveat to the respondents, reminding them to accord Speaker Koffa due process.
“We understand that a majority elected another Speaker,” Kaba said, noting that the law provides a procedure. “Follow it.”
Ruling into the Bill of Information has been reserved for a later date.