MONROVIA – The famous quotation by human rights icon, Baptist preacher Martin Luther King Jr. echoes on these West African shores: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” At long last, the horrible nights of naked bully, threats and disgrace suffered by constitutionally elected Speaker of the House of Representatives, J. Fonati Koffa, have finally anchored at the gates of the rule of law, and have turned into smiles and joy of victory. As The Analyst reports, this time around, the Supreme Court is more definitive and unambiguous: “Any sitting or action by the ‘Majority Bloc’ to the exclusion of Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, the duly elected presiding Officer of the House of Representatives, while he is present and available to preside, is unconstitutional and without the pale of the law,” the country’s high court rules.
The supreme court of Liberia has granted the bill of information filed by the House of Representatives embattle speaker J. Fonati Koffa, while calling on members of the majority bloc headed by Representative Richards Koon to operate in accordance with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of article 33 and 49 of the constitution.
The high court in her opinion delivered on Wednesday April 23, 2025, stated that any sitting or action by the majority bloc to the exclusion of embattle speaker J. Fonati Koffa as the duly elected presiding officer of the house of Representatives is considered unconstitutional and without the pale of the law.
The High Court stated: “That a bill of information will lie to clarify uncertainties in opinions and judgment of the supreme court of Liberia. In the instant case, the parties being at variance with respect to what constitute the December 6, 2024 judgment of this court.”
The Supreme Court in its opinion read by chief justice Sie-Nyene Yuoh said the responding lawyers when asked to the whereabouts of embattled Speaker Koffa, before Deputy Speaker Thomas Fallah presided. And the lawyers answered “that he was in one room”.
Chief justice Yuoh said such a response by the responding counselors raises the cardinal question of whether the deputy speaker and or any other members of the house could legally act as presiding officer for a plenary, in the wake of the speaker being present and available to perform his constitutionally delegated task.
The supreme court again as in its December 6, 2024 ruling emphasize that they see no promulgation of an enabling status as to how article 33 of the constitution of Liberia 1986 can be executed by the presiding officer, whom they have held, pursuant to article 49 of the constitution is the speaker, and that speaker is Cllr Koffa.
Despite recognizing embattled speaker Koffa as the constitutionally recognized head of the house of representatives, the Court again them, continued: “Unfortunately he has present no means as to how the constitutional presiding officer of the house of representatives can compel absentee members to attend session for the purpose of attaining quorum for the transaction of business.”
The Supreme Court further maintained that these parallel sittings and or actions lacks legal foundation either by the dictates of the constitution or any other laws within this jurisdiction.
Accordingly, chief justice Yuoh said that the crux of the dispute between the parties poses a constitutional crisis, thus vesting the supreme court of Liberia with the authority to delve into the matter.
Accordingly, we herewith reaffirm this position of the court as was done in the December 6, 2024 ruling emphatically declares that it’s within the power of the Supreme Court to say what the law is without fear or favor, irrespective of the parties before the court.
“That pursuant to this constitutional authority, the Supreme Court can and will address any allegation of a constitutional violation within any branch of government,” Chief justice Youh said.
It can be recalled in a critical judgment on Friday, December 6, the Supreme Court of Liberia declined to resolve the leadership crisis at the House of Representatives, a decision that sparked debate about the Court’s role as the final arbiter of constitutional disputes.
The case, brought by embattled Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, sought the Court’s interpretation of Article 33 of the 1986 Constitution to address the Majority Bloc’s boycott of legislative sessions under his gavel, and its subsequent installation of a new Speaker.
Instead of providing a definitive constitutional resolution, the Court had at the time ruled that it could not intervene in what it deemed an internal legislative matter.
Chief Justice Sie-A-Nyene Yuoh, delivering the unanimous opinion, stated, “Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court cannot do for the Legislature what is within its [legislative] purview to do, as to do so will be a violation of the constitutional mandate on the separation of powers.”
While the judgment underscores the principle of separation of powers, critics argue that the Court’s decision sidesteps its constitutional duty to provide clarity on critical issues affecting the nation’s governance.
The Case in Context
Speaker Koffa had approached the Supreme Court with the hope of resolving what he described as a deliberate boycott by the Majority Bloc to disrupt legislative functions, including the passage of the 2025 National Budget.
Koffa’s petition asked the Court to compel the attendance of absent lawmakers, citing the constitutional requirement for a quorum under Article 33.
The Majority Bloc, on the other hand, had argued that their actions were lawful and that the Constitution did not mandate the Court to intervene in such disputes. Instead, they claimed that the Legislature itself should resolve the impasse.
In its judgment, the Court affirmed its jurisdiction to decide constitutional issues arising from legislative disputes but stopped short of providing a mechanism for resolving the crisis.
Instead, it emphasized that the Constitution is “devoid of the mechanism for how the minority is to compel attendance of absent members” and that the Legislature has failed to promulgate enabling statutes or rules to address such scenarios.
The Judgment of April 23
When this case was called for hearing, Counsellors M. Wilkins Wright, Arthur T. Johnson, Jonathan T. Massaquoi, and Elisha T. Forkeyoh appeared for the informants while Counsellors H. Vamey G. Sherman and Albert S, Sims appeared for the respondents.
Having carefully examined the contentions of the parties, listened to the arguments on both sides, and considered the laws relevant thereto, it is hereby adjudged: That a bill of information will lie to clarify uncertainties in Opinions and Judgments of the Supreme Court. In the instant case, the parties being at variance with respect to what constitute the December 6. 2024 Opinion and Judgment of this Court, the amended bill of information is proper for such clarification; and
That the conclusion of the Supreme Court Opinion and Judgment of December 6. 2024, is that any sitting or action by the “Majority Bloc” (respondents) to the exclusion of Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, the duly elected presiding Officer of the House of Representatives, while he is present and available to preside is unconstitutional and without the pale of the law; wherefore and in view of the foregoing, the amended bill of information is granted for the reasons stated in the Opinion of this Judgment, and the “Majority Bloc” (respondents) is hereby mandated to operate in accordance with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution as contained in the Court’s Opinion and Judgment of December 6, 2024, and further clarified in the Opinion of this Judgment. The Clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to inform the parties of this Court’s decision. AND IT IS HEREBY SO ORDERED.
Comments are closed.