Cllr. Cephas Critiques Supreme Court Ruling -Says Ruling Did Not Provide Petitioner Any Relief

MONROVIA – In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Friday, December 6 landmark ruling which, among other things, declared as ultra vires or illegal any sittings or actions by members of the Legislature, meaning not in conformity with the intent of Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution, and that members of the House of Representatives are to conduct themselves in accordance with the ruling, one of the lawyers for House Speaker Cllr. J. Fonati Koffa and his Minority Bloc, Cllr. Sayma Syrenius Cephas, has offered his critique of the Supreme Court’s ruling, terming it as a “victory for the Majority Bloc”, as The Analyst reports.

Liberians are not letting inks dry on the opinion of the Supreme Court which many consider to be unclear, particularly to ordinary citizens having no legal education, and continue to give their reactions. Thankfully, a cross section of lawyers are critiquing the opinion though with contradictory perspectives, leaving ordinary Liberians divided and confused. While others think the opinion has settled the matter against the majority group, there other those who say it little or nothing, and further emboldens them. This latter perspective is also shared one of embattled Koffa’s lawyers in the case, Cllr. Syrenius Cephus.

Writing on his social media page, the former Solicitor General said: “When the constitution said that a simple majority shall constitute a quorum, and the lower number shall meet from time to time and compel the attendance of absent members, the Supreme Court which is a creature of the Constitution, is the only sole authority vested with the power to interpret the constitution should have given meaning to what is meant by compel. But to leave that, I think it was an oversight. Now, when you are criticizing the Supreme Court, you carefully select your words. So, I think it was a gross constitutional oversight. Because, as it stands, the Majority Bloc won. That’s how I see it. There is no blinking about it.”

In  the opinion of Cllr Cephus, the Majority Bloc won because nobody goes to court with the intent of getting relief, and then the relief is given in the form that it does not address a specific issue.

“For example, it said, go and apply your rules. But those are the rules that were the source of controversy,” declared Cllr. Cephas in a somewhat unexpected but frank conversation with panelists of Spoon Talk Live over the weekend.

According to Cllr. Cephas, who disclosed that he is in the process of writing an exposition critiquing the ruling of the Supreme Court, there are two ways to deal with the construction principle of interpretation when it comes to constitutional and statutory interpretation.

“In statutory interpretation, the court determines the meaning, to be able to identify what the framers meant when it comes to a specific provision of the statute. In constitutional interpretation, the court assigns meaning. There are seven principles of constitutional interpretation. Let me just name four. One, you do the text, then you do the history, the structure, the precedent, the consequence, the moral, and so forth.

“You know, my mom used to tell me that the truth is naked, so everybody is afraid of the truth. For example, when the Supreme Court said that any sitting that is not done consistent with Article 33 and 49 is ultra vires, that was the issue before the Court. The court now should have crowned it and said, therefore, so and so sitting was ultra vires. When you go to court for relief, instead of getting relief, the court only says that if anybody steals it is a crime. But you carried a case that someone stole your goat, then the court ruled that anybody who steals a goat is a rogue.

“If you went to pick plums, for instance, and at the end of your struggle you only got all the leaves, would you consider it a success? For example, if the parties will go back to submit to their rules, which is a source of controversy on their own to solve the problem, do you think going to court was necessary in the first place? In my opinion, no; because they are going back where they started from. I am saying we needed a definitive declaration,” Cllr. Cephas stated passionately.

He said when it comes to constitutional interpretation, there is a certain concept called the doctrine of necessary implication which must be applied.

“I said there are seven principles of interpreting constitutional articles and treaties. Let me talk about the doctrine of necessary implication. It is a statutory construction that says, what is implied is as much as that which is expressed. So, let’s come to Article 33 which says that the lower number will meet from day to day and shall compel the attendance of absent members. The constitutional court should have assigned a meaning to the word ‘compel’ that would form the basis for them to proceed, and therefore, the ruling is not self-executing. If you should interpret the constitution in a broader context, I disagree. The Supreme Court should have assigned meaning to Article 33, to define what constitutes compelling,” the Minority Bloc legal counsel stated in a somewhat frustrated fashion.

When asked whether he believed his client remains Speaker of the House of Representatives based on the Supreme Court ruling, Cllr. Cephas unequivocally agreed that Cllr. Koffa remains the legitimate Speaker of the House of Representatives; however, he said the Court committed an oversight not to have declared his rights in its ruling.

“The Court should have declared his rights in terms of his office, in that ruling. That basic fundamental right should have been declared. He is the bonafide speaker of the House of Representatives, however, as it relates to this case, we lost because we didn’t get any categorical declaration on all of the issues that we raised.

“My client was never given due process. But we will make sure the courts of Liberia declare his rights,” Cllr. Cephas later declared confidently.

It can be recalled that the full bench of the Honorable Supreme Court sitting in its October term A.D. 2024 adjudged a ruling in a petition filed by House Fonati Koffa regarding the unconstitutionality of several actions taken by certain members of the House of Representatives.

In that ruling the Supreme Court first established its constitutional obligation to adjudge ruling in the petitioner’s case by quoting Article 66 of the Constitution which stated that the Supreme Court shall be the final arbiter of constitutional issues and shall exercise final appellate jurisdiction in all cases whether emanating from the courts of record, court not of records, administrative agencies, autonomous agencies or any authority, both as to the law and fact.

“Hence, the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to decide constitutional issues arising out of internal dissensions among the members of the Legislature, as in the present case. That it is the 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 is apparent discrepancy between different provisions, the Court should harmonize them, if possible,” the Supreme Court record indicated.

Continuing, the Supreme Court, cognizant of the doctrine of separation of powers regarding Liberia’s jurisprudence, proffered its interpretation of Article 33 of the 1986 Constitution, that states that whether a simple majority is sitting or a lower number, in both cases a Presiding Officer, defined in Article 49 of the Constitution is the Speaker, and in his/her absence, the Deputy Speaker.

“That in the event where the Speaker is presiding over a minority, the Constitution is devoid of the mechanism for how the minority is to compel attendance of absent members; and the Legislature has promulgated no enabling statute or standing rules setting forth the process for compelling absentee members to attend sessions as envisioned under Article 33 of the Constitution; and that under these circumstances, the Supreme Court cannot do for the Legislature what is within its purview to do, as to do so will be a violation of the constitutional mandate on the separation of powers.

In its final ruling, the SC therefore declared as ultra vires any sittings or actions by members of the Legislature not in conformity with the intent of Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution.

“Hence, Members of the House of Representatives are to conduct themselves accordingly. The Clerk of this Court is ordered to inform the parties. AND IT IS HEREBY SO ORDERED,” the Court declared.

When the case was called for hearing, Counsellors James E. Pierre and Arthur Tamba Johnson appeared for the petitioners. Counsellors G. Varney Sherman, Sr. and Garrison D. Yealue, Jr. appeared for the respondents. Counsellors Augustine C. Fayiah, Solicitor General, Republic of Liberia, Jerry D. K. Garlawolu, Assistant Minister for Litigation, and Joel E. Theoway, Assistant Minister for Economic Affairs appeared for the Ministry of Justice.

Members of the full bench of the Honorable Supreme Court included Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene G. Yuoh; Associate Justice Jamasetta Howard Wolokolie; Associate Justice Yussif D. Kaba; Associate Justice Yamie Quiqui Greisay, Sr.; and Associate Justice Ceaineh D. Clinton Johnson.

1 Comment
  1. Jake Doe says

    Cephas, you are dead wrong. Contextual meaning has priority over others.

    You are dead wrong to equate an “easy case“ of goat stealing with that of a “hard case“ with direct ligaments to separation of powers viz non encroachment, etc..

    The former needs no delicate threading, while the latter must be guided by such threading.

    The relief and definite declaration are throughout the judgment.

    Every decision must be based on law. A good judge always pays attention not only to the literal meaning of the statute but also to the intent and purpose of the legislation. And that is exactly what those judges did.

    Stop fooling yourself and the innocent others.

Comments are closed.