Minority Bloc Threading Slippery Grounds? -Gradually Gravitating towards Majority Bloc -Pundits Ponder What the Game Plan Could Be

MONROVIA – Since the last five months, the House of Representatives of the 55^th Legislature is embroiled in dead-heat of political acrimonies, split in two halves over speakership, triggering constitutional crisis and unpleasant reputation for the entire country in the global community. And it seems the ruling establishment, including the Executive Mansion, the Cabinet, the High Court of the land, not to mention the so-called majority bloc, don’t see the urgency of a situation, firmly careless about the repercussions and implications on governance and security. They are head-bent, stiff-neck and stonewalling – apparently without “Plan B” or any intent to compromise, except to pursue with force the common agenda of ousting Speaker J. Fonati Koffa. But something interesting is taking place. Supporters of the embattled speaker, 30 representatives, have been showing strange signs of reflexibility or for “Plan B” despite Supreme Court delays to answer to their filed bills of information on an earlier ruling. First, they have formed what they call the “Rule of Law Caucus” which is not headed by their principal, Speaker Koffa, and second, they plan to gravitate toward the “majority bloc” whose gatherings and activities were declared “ultra vires” by the Supreme Court, and which they had strongly opposed and seemingly under the gavel of a man they believe was illegally made Speaker. Why are they making these moves? The Analyst reports.

House Speaker Jonathan Fonati Koffa’s staunched supporters have broken loose, at least so seem to ordinary observers, as they have announced to begin attending session along with their rival colleagues, aka “majority bloc” representatives, with whom they had had bitter acrimonies over whether or not Speaker Koffa should resign.

Dubbed as the minority bloc, the group has metamorphosed into “Rule of Law Caucus”, with the head being Nimba County representative Musa Hassan Bility, and not Koffa who was the arrowhead of the movement that has been dragging their rebellious colleagues and those who support them to the podium of Liberian laws and the Constitution.

Both the pronouncement to form another movement aside from Kofa’s ‘minority bloc’ and their stated readiness to attend sessions with a group they had vehemently denounced as rebellious and illegal has sent shockwaves across the country, perhaps beyond, and many are wondering why the sudden change when the “majority bloc” is yet to anything that changed their position.

Besides the fact that they had differed with the so-called majority of group over the illegal manner they announced Koffa deposed, the now “Rule of Law Caucus” as well as the High Court of the Country, believed all the activities and sittings of “majority group” was “ultra vires”. 

Shockingly, the 30 representatives, in a resolution, said they were returning to sessions with their “majority bloc” colleagues since they have “waited for the Supreme Court to clarify its last ruling but to no avail”.

“Thus, we must take a different approach to resolve our differences through Legislative interactions,” said the pro-Koffa group, adding that they would use the “legislative engagement” to express their objections the election of a new Speaker because “there is already a speaker who was legitimately elected in accordance with the Constitution and our Rules”.

They also said in the resolution that they were joining the “illegal sitting” to express objection to the suspension and withholding of the salaries of other colleagues which they think is in total contravention of House’s rules.

According to them, their joining of session with the “majority bloc” will allow them discuss the dissolution and reconstitution of all House Committees in violation of rules, and the majority bloc’s refusal to release benefits owed to members of the Rule of Law Caucus, which the Ministry of Finance and Development Planning has fully remitted into the account of the House.

“We want to emphasize that we remain committed to the rule of law, which includes taking further appropriate legal actions while pursuing legislative resolutions on the floor of the House of Representatives,” the pro-Koffa said maintained, thanking the people of Liberia for standing by them and assuring them of commitment to the rule of law.

Slippery Slop

Some have hailed the passage of the resolution by the minority bloc, terming a nationalist, pragmatic and necessary for healing in the interest of the people and country, while others think they signees of it are running themselves in harms way generally and taking Koffa to the slaughter house specifically.

Those who question the Koffa bloc’s move contend that there are many questions than answers in the decision by the minority bloc to join the majority bloc session, particular so since there is not any formal and informal agreement between the two factions.

Some are asking, how can the “Rule of Law Caucus” convince the public they are not going into an “illegal gathering” – something the High Court described as such.

“Will moving into such a sitting not only taints the “rule of law caucus” members too and that they have also become violators of the law?” asked Portee K. Nardor, Jr., a student activist.

He said: “What has changed within the majority bloc that makes the Koffa supporters to move joining their sittings? How do they feel sitting under the gavel of an illegally elected speaker, calling his Mr. Speaker? Can they win a vote on any of the issues listed in their resolution, giving the fact that the majority power is still in the hands of the stubborn bloc to wield? When each of those issues are raised and put on the table for a vote, can the ‘minority” get anything out of the “majority’? What if the Supreme Court rules in the bill of information case, re-declaring the sitting of the Speaker Koon faction illegal? Would it exempt the pro-Koffa faction from approbation of the illegality? Where will this scenario lead Koffa and the supporters themselves?” 

Patriotic Move

Other Liberians see it differently, as Jeremiah T. Kingston, a community leader on Bushrod Island, asserted in an interview with The Analyst.

He opined: “One person has to play the fool if any intractable problem is to be resolved. The prolongation of the civil war was because everyone claimed to have much military might and sense to outmaneuver the other factions. They were mistaken. So, the war dragged on for 14 years, only after 250,000 compatriots had died. It was only when Taylor decided to play the fool by leaving the country, or when one or two factions lately thought many lives were already lost and decided to play the fool that the war ended.”

He continued: “Assuming it is the fool part that Koffa’s men are playing, I think it is necessary to save this country. Do you know how much this silly House quarrel has cost this country? Constitution violated by will. National budget passed illegally and hastily without public hearing? Liberia represented by two Speakers of the House. We have made ourselves public scorn; international pariah, democratically.

“What is about a speaker job that the country will suffer indefinitely. At least, for now, we know how the crisis has unmasked the pretense with which this Government and its president claim to espouse democracy, rule of law and experience in governance. It has exposed how many of our leaders are given to the instinct of brute force, coercion and subjugation as means to power. We know that what these people could not get democratically in early 2023 is that which they are using brute force to get, as little Liberian kids would say, ‘boofer ground hold it’ in 2024. We clearly know that. And we have all reason to doubt them on those issues today and tomorrow. Koffa, Bility and others just need to back off, keep their calms, think patriotically for the sake for the peace of the country.” 

Liberians are poised to see that the play book of the minority fares as they are expected to join the group they had called “illegal” and in sittings the Supreme Court had called “ultra vires”.