Meetings, Actions ‘Ultra Vires’ -Supreme Court Terms Majority Bloc’s Maneuvers -Critics Pick Bones With ‘Controversial’ Opinion 

MONROVIA – At long last, the nation’s High Court has rendered verdict in the case Speaker J. Fonati Koffa and “majority bloc” of the House of Representatives – a verdict sparking unsettling debates amongst law practitioners and nonlawyers across the country. Liberians are finding it difficult to say who won the legal battle, and whether the lingering feud between the two belligerent groups within the House of Representatives is resolved by the judgement. But as The Analyst reports, though the two parties are claiming victory, the Court’s description of the meetings and actions of the “majority bloc’ as ultra vires says it all: that the “majority” has been acting illegally.   

In what was expected to have been a landmark ruling that would have put to bed the long-running leadership saga at the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court of Liberia gave its ruling.

Amongst other things, the High Court opined that the actions by members of the Legislature were not in conformity with the intent of Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution, and are ultra vires.

Stating his satisfaction with the SC ruling, Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, who many believe came out with flying colors as a result of the ruling, says the Supreme Court’s decision is a victory not merely for the “Minority Bloc”, but for Liberia and its fledgling democracy.

Setting the basis of its ruling delivered over the weekend, the Supreme Court clearly stated what ‘wherefore and in view of the foregoing, any sittings or actions by members of the Legislature not in conformity with the intent of Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution are ultra vires, 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.”

In adjudging its opinion on the matter, the Supreme Court started off by stating its authority in handling the issue at bay by citing Article 66 of the Constitution which states 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,” stated the opinion.

“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;

“That this Court’s interpretation of Article 33 of the Constitution (1986), is 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.

“WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, any sittings or actions by members of the Legislature not in conformity with the intent of Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution are ultra vires. 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.”

Speaker Koffa: Victory for Democracy

Voicing his elation immediately after the Supreme Court ruling, Speaker Koffa welcomed the decision as a victory not only for his bloc but for democracy.

“I want to take this time to appreciate the Supreme Court for a just and equitable ruling. We believe this is consistent with the constitution and laws of Liberia,” he said. “But our focus, now that we have left the legal realm is to move to the political realm; to encourage and convince out colleagues that we should at this point, we have barely a week to go before the session closes, we have a budget to pass, come to work, all of our difference can be resolved on the floor. Let us rededicate out efforts to making sure the work of the people is done.”

He called on his colleagues, regardless of which side of the divide they were on, to be one House of Representatives.

“There are no victors, there are no vanquished. We only have victory in the rule of law,” Speaker Koffa said in a post SC ruling interview,” he noted, and added, “We celebrate victory, not of a bloc, but of a democracy embedded in the rule of law. In the next few days, I will be reaching across the aisle to encourage my colleagues to return to work, do the Liberian people business, restructure the house, and contemplate my transition. To God be the Glory,” Koffa furthered in a post on his social media wall.”

As legal pundits and ordinary citizens grapple over the ramifications of the Supreme Court decision today, all eyes are set to watch what will happen next Tuesday when the House of Representatives meets for its regular session.

Already, defiant postures are erupting from the Majority Bloc indicating that they are not prepared to undo all ultra vires (unconstitutional) actions, and that they will operate under the gavel of their own elected House Speaker Richard Koon.

“Whatever decision the Supreme Court came up with, we are waiting to see what happens next Tuesday. If the Majority Bloc misbehaves, the best the Supreme Court can do is to cite their lawyers,” a lawyer told this paper.