MONROVIA – Due to that many consider the terse and ambiguous expressions conveying the opinion of the Supreme Court, legal pundits and ordinary Liberians scurrying to chime in their interpretations to the Supreme Court’s December 6 ruling in the petition filed by embattled House Speaker and his Minority legislators against the Majority Bloc which, among actions, recently elected Montserrado County Representative Richard Koon as its new House Speaker. As The Analyst reports, Sinoe County Senator Cllr. Augustine S. Chea has added his legal insight, stating in definitive terms that the Supreme Court ruling has put a halt to all actions and sittings undertaken by the Majority Bloc.
Sinoe County Senator, who is a noted legal luminary himself, has dissected the opinion of the Supreme Court as Liberians make efforts to understand the merit demerits of the judgement.
In a write-out found on his social media page, Senator Chea posited: “So, the Court summed up everything here (after first recognizing that the Speaker is the Presiding Officer): that ‘any sittings and actions by the Legislature’ (the ‘majority bloc’) inconsistent with Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution are beyond or outside of their constitutional powers (ultra vires).”
The Sinoe County lawmaker then continued: “And if, by parity of reasoning, the sittings and actions by the ‘majority bloc’ (without the Speaker, who is the Presiding Officer, presiding) are ‘ultra vires,’ then it follows that everything done by them (holding sessions, suspending members, restructuring committees, taking possession of the budget, and electing a speaker) is illegal. In other words, that they had no authority or not within their powers to do so.”
According to the Senate Chairman on Judiciary Committee, there are certain takeaways to glean from the Supreme Court ruling which provide serious interpretations into the House of Representatives case.
Regarding the takeaway from the Court’s interpretation of Article 33 of the Constitution which 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, the Supreme Court was equivocal about who wields the gavel of authority in such sitting.
Citing Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court noted that the Speaker presides over Plenary Sittings or Sessions of the HOR; whether it is a simple majority that is sitting (a quorum), which can hold sessions, or less (a lower number), which cannot hold sessions (Article 33).
“The sittings or sessions must be presided over by the Speaker, the Presiding Officer,” Chea further observed. “That the Deputy Speaker presides in the absence of the Speaker; that is, when the Speaker is not at work, or if he asked the Deputy Speaker to preside, or if he recused himself from presiding,” Cllr. Chea stated. “That in the event where the Speaker is presiding over a minority [as in this case], Cllr. Chea agreed with the Court that the Constitution and House rules are devoid of the mechanism for how the minority is to compel attendance of absent members.”
He added: “The Court acknowledges here that it is without authority to delve into the merits of this issue because it has no constitutional authority to do so. And as the Court said, and rightly so, the Constitution does not provide for how absent members should be compelled to attend Plenary Sessions. Therefore, it remains a political question until the constitution is amended or the Legislature enacts a law or a rule providing for how this can be done. (Read my previous post on the political question doctrine). Until then, members of the HOR must voluntarily fulfill their constitutional obligation by attending regular sessions presided over by the Speaker.”
Regarding the weighty issue of the Supreme Court ruling which deals with the petitioner’s quest to have the high court nullify unlawful actions taken by the Majority Bloc, Cllr. Chea said the Supreme Court ruling was clearly in favor of the petitioners, in that the SC unambiguously stated, ‘…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 takeaway from this decision is that the Speaker’s case was for the Supreme Court to look into the constitutionality of some actions taken by the ‘majority bloc,’ the Sinoe County senator noted. “That is, holding sessions, suspending members, restructuring committees, taking possession of the budget, and electing a speaker. So, the Court summed up everything here (after first recognizing that the Speaker is the Presiding Officer): that ‘any sittings and actions by the Legislature’ (the ‘majority bloc’) inconsistent with Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution are beyond or outside of their constitutional powers (ultra vires).
“And if, by parity of reasoning, the sittings and actions by the ‘majority bloc’ (without the Speaker, who is the Presiding Officer, presiding) are ‘ultra vires,’ then it follows that everything done by them (holding sessions, suspending members, restructuring committees, taking possession of the budget, and electing a speaker) is illegal. In other words, that they had no authority or not within their powers to do so.”
Comments are closed.