“SC Ruling Victory for Speaker Koffa” – Cllr. Cephas  -Says Personal Legal Opinion Cannot Supersede SC Ruling   

MONROVIA – One of the legal counsels for embattled House Speaker J. Fonati Koffa has opined that under no condition can an opinion of any lawyer override the Supreme Court’s December 6, 2024, ruling that ordered all parties to return to “status quo ante” pending the determination of the legislative imbroglio case. Cllr. Sayma Syrenius Cephas went further to reinforce that the Supreme Court ruling was in fact a partial victory for Speaker Koffa in that the SC ruling had declared any sitting of the House of Representatives not consistent with Articles 33 and 49 of the Constitution as “ultra vires”.

Registering his consternation over the turn of events that saw the Executive Branch and the Senate recognizing the sittings of the Majority Bloc after the recent Supreme Court ruling, and in the aftermath of the legal opinion proffered by Liberia’s Attorney General Cllr. Oswald Tweh at the behest of the Executive Mansion, the pro-Koffa legal counsel wondered how Africa’s oldest republic could so callously disregard the rule of law.

“Liberia is really a sick country to live in. How can a personal opinion expressed by a lawyer which is obvious and which is not the law supersede a Supreme Court’s opinion that is the law?

“Whether a lawyer disagrees or not, the Supreme Court’s opinion remains the law. In the “Re the constitutionality petition” filed by Speaker Koffa, the Supreme Court issued a “Stay Order” asking the parties to return to “Status Quo Ante” pending the determination of the matter, which means every other action taken prior to the petition was stayed or declared ‘Null and Void’.

“That was a partial victory for Speaker Koffa, and then in the ruling that Court unambiguously reinforced the Stay order by saying any sitting of the House that is not consistent with Article 33 and 49 is ultra vires. This has finally climaxed the victory of Speaker Koffa,” Cllr. Cephas intoned in a statement released Wednesday via his social media platform.

He said a lawyer’s disagreement in whatever form or manner is simply an academic exercise that does not invalidate that the Supreme Court’s opinion and a party’s victory appertaining thereto as in the instant case.

“Moreover, and most importantly the Supreme Court left in place perpetually the “return to Status Quo Ante” order which is a further testament of Speaker Koffa’s victory.

“Finally, as regard the question of ” majority bloc” or majority this or that” the Court judicially ignored such purported appellation and dealt with “absenteeism” which is the only viable constitutional group recognized under Article 33 as ” legislative mavericks” and whose attendance of legislative session for the transaction of business is the exclusive preserve of the Speaker, and in this case Speaker Koffa.  And being that the enforcement of ” compulsory attendance”    is not a judicial function, same was left out to be politically addressed because there exists no mechanism to deal with such exercise, and therefore falls under the political question doctrine.

“Again, how does the disagreement of a lawyer alter this law as opined by the Supreme Court? I am fully in agreement with the Court and Speaker Koffa has won because in applying at least four of the seven principles of constitutional interpretation, the court looked at namely (1) the plain  text of Article 33, (2) the history (3) the tradition, and (4) precedent and from its analysis perhaps found no history and precedence in the sundry of its case laws to deal with such situation and so consistent with the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers under Article 3, the “tradition” is that the ” compulsory order’ must be  exclusively addressed by the House presided over by Speaker Koffa as in keeping with Article 33 and 49. This is and it remains the law,” Cllr. Cephas asserted authoritatively.