MONROVIA – What seems to be defection from majority ruling of the Supreme Court in its verdict outlawing the majority bloc leadership in the House of Representatives of the 55th Legislature and affirming the Fonati Koffa as the Speaker has taken place at the Temple of Justice.
The man whose analysis some time ago gave the Liberian public some clues about the High Court decision against the majority bloc, attracting “liquor talk” insult from an angry staunched ranking member of the bloc for such analysis, has taken a detour.
Weeks ago, Justice Yarmie Gbeisay in a chitchat with the media, condemned the majority bloc of power grab, something that not only looked like shedding light in advance on the ruling of the Supreme Court in favor of Speaker Koffa, but also triggered an angry reaction from Bong County Representative Foday Fahnbulleh who described the justice’s comments as “liquor talk”.
Least expectedly, the associate justice was the one putting himself on the record as dissenting from the verdict he had heralded some time ago. Others say his earlier position was “a devil’s advocate”.
On Wednesday, Justice Gbeisay said in his dissenting opinion that the Liberian Judiciary, like the other two branches of government, is receiving salaries, benefits and operational expenses under the 2025 budget signed by members of the majority bloc, and wondered if the Court’s Wednesday judgement outlawing the legislators of the budget does not also render the budget illegal or outlawed.
He contended that if the majority bloc did not carry out that function of the legislature, it was preposterous because the consequence would be producing chaos and the collapse of the government for lack of money to operate, and the judiciary itself would be paralyzed.
He also spoke of the seven suspended lawmakers of “minority block” who had been calling for payment, and even filed a Writ of Mandamus before the Supreme Court.
“The question then is, under which budget they seek to recover their salaries?” he asked rhetorically. “Are they seeking salaries under the same budget of 2025 they declared illegal?”
Expanding this question further, Justice Gbeisay noted that every branch of the government seeks to benefit from the budget of 2025, and yet the same budget from which they benefit has been declared illegal because its crafters and the processes that midwifed it are declared ultra vires.
According to justice Gbeisay, the Supreme Court is guided by law and should be reasonable in applying the law in the light of the circumstances of a particular case, as in the instant one.
The preservation of the government, the maintenance of civility, peace and orderliness in the society are embodied in judicial pronouncement of what the law is, he further said. Hence, the action of the president as head of state, head of government and commander in chief of the Armed Forces of Liberia, to prevent chaos was a necessary stance.
Justices of the High Court, Gbeisay asserted, should support any action that supports the law, to support expediency and public policy, as it is also the prime duty of the constitutional court to interpret the law for the safety and survivability of the body politic.
“For the reasons stated above, I respectfully withhold my signature from the majority opinion of this Court as the bill of information will not legally lie,” he said in a statement. “I further hope and pray that the opinion will be recalled in the immediate future by this bench or the succeeding bench.”
He referred to the case LAMCO JV Operating Company Co. v. Azzam et al., 31 LLR, 649 (1983), where it was opined that one who knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract or conveyance is estopped from denying the validity or binding effect on him of such a contract or conveyance.”
According to justice Gbeisay, it would be an inconsistent position to benefit from the budget of 2025 by receiving salaries and then seek to challenge its legality.
“The Opinion and judgment of my majority colleagues is a slap in the face of justice,” he further contended, adding: “In my opinion, the judgment of my esteemed colleagues is unfortunate as it is a miscarriage of the law.”
In considering the political and legal acts and expediency under the circumstance of this case, he said even though an impasse existed in the House of Representatives that had divided them into “majority bloc” and “minority bloc”, they still have the right to sit in spite of the Supreme Court’s decision of December 6, 2024.
He said Supreme Court has no authority whatsoever to stop another branch of government from performing its constitutional duty.
He pointed to the fact that the “majority bloc” while sitting, received the draft budget for fiscal year 2025 from the clerk of the House of Representatives, which was submitted by the President of Liberia.
He said the “majority block” deliberated on the draft budget and passed on it, then submitted it to the Liberian Senate which concurred by affirming the act of the “majority bloc” with respect to the passage of the budget.
He described these proceedings as political decisions made by the “majority bloc” and the House of Senate, by taking action to pass on the draft budget notwithstanding the impasse at the House of Representatives.
Following this political decision of the “majority block” and confirmed by the Liberian Senate, Gbeisay argued, the budget was submitted to the President of Liberia to sign, which he did in line with his official duty as President of Liberia, Head of Government, and Chief Executive of the Liberian Government.
The expediency of these actions cannot go unnoticed by any reasonable mind and this court is not unaware of how it would have enlarged into an imminent chaos in the country – circumstances that could have led to a chaos and total collapse of the Government of Liberia.
He emphasized that the President of Liberia, in keeping with his constitutional duty as Head of Government and Chief Executive, is required to submit a draft budget for each fiscal year to enable the operation of the Liberian Government: pay salaries, pay obligations of the government and provide operational expenses for the three branches of the government.
Comments are closed.